Cho Jae-2016-west-394 (Law No. 13, 2016)

Whether this case's service constitutes "business facility management and business support service business subject to zero tax rate" or "foreign service business" or "foreign service;

The main content of the service provided by the Plaintiff to a hotel overseas falls under the category of the travel company and other travel auxiliary service business under the Korean Standard Industrial Classification Table, and the main and essential part of the service of this case is in Korea, so it cannot be viewed as the service provided overseas. Therefore, it is not the service covered by the zero

Article 10 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 11 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 22 of the Value-Added Tax Act shall apply to overseas

Disposition Imposing Value-Added Tax

Is 00

00. Head of tax office

on October 24, 2017

on October 24, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On November 5, 2015, the Defendant revoked each imposition of value-added tax of 8,95,060 won for the second term of 2012 against the Plaintiff, value-added tax of 9,726,450 won for the first term of 2013, value-added tax of 10,228,530 won for the second term of 2013, value-added tax of 12,036,460 won for the first term of 2014, value-added tax of 11,798,050 won for the second term of 2014, value-added tax of 10,696,570 won for the first term of 2015, respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From October 1, 2010 to June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff was an individual entrepreneur who runs a business with the trade name of 00-Gu 00-1, Seoul, 00-1, 23th 00 (a) of △△ building, and received 8% of the guest fee paid by domestic tourists from bbriart in Korean currency through a foreign exchange bank, from October 1, 2010, pursuant to an agreement with bbriart located in the Guam of the United States of America (hereinafter “instant service”).

B. On the ground that the instant service constitutes “business facility management and business support services” under the Value-Added Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, or “services supplied overseas”, the Plaintiff reported value-added tax on the Defendant from February 2, 2012 to January 2015 by applying the zero-rate tax rate to the entire sales through the above payment.

C. However, on November 5, 2015, the Defendant issued a correction and notice of the value-added tax for the second term portion of value-added tax for 2012, 8,955,060 won, value-added tax for 1 year 2013, value-added tax for 1 year 2013, 10,228,530 won, value-added tax for 12,036,460 won, value-added tax for 1 year 2014, 11,798,050 won, and 10,69,570 won for 2 year 2014, and value-added tax for 12,036,460 won for 1 year 2014, and 10,69,570 won for 1 year 2015 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

D. On February 3, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 3, 2016, but received a decision of dismissal on June 13, 2016, and filed the instant lawsuit on September 8, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. A. (a) operated by the Plaintiff, as the regional offices (or agents, agents, and agents) of B.B., operating hotel in the Guam of the United States of America, performs overall tasks for B.B., including market surveys, advertisements, public relations, support for the employment of intern employees, and local transaction support for various business activities, such as hosting, professionalization, marketing, consulting, etc., the services provided by the Plaintiff to B.B. shall be subject to zero-rate tax because the services provided by the Plaintiff to B.B., constitute “business facility management and business support services to support hotel businesses operated by B.B.” Even if not, the services provided by the Plaintiff to B.B., which were performed overseas from among the services provided by B.B., are governed by the zero-rate tax rate. Accordingly, the instant disposition that excluded the application of zero-rate tax rate for the services provided by the Plaintiff to B.B., is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant service constitutes “business facility management and business support service” subject to zero-rate tax rate

Article 24 (1) 3 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the zero-rate tax shall apply to the supply of goods or services for acquiring foreign currencies, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 33 (2) 1 (h) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26983, Feb. 17, 2016; hereinafter the same) provides that "business facility management and business support services" shall be provided as the zero-rate tax, and among them, travel agents and other travel support services shall be excluded. Therefore, even if the service of this case constitutes "business facility management and business support services", if the service of this case constitutes "tourist and other travel support services", it is excluded from the application of zero-rate tax rate.

In addition, Article 4 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the classification of the business that supplies services shall be based on the Korean Standard Industrial Classification as of the starting date of the relevant taxable period publicly notified by the Commissioner of the Statistics Korea, except as otherwise provided in this Decree, and there is no special provision in the Enforcement Decree of the same Act with respect to the business facility management and business support service, travelers and other travel auxiliary service business, and therefore, the type of the

According to the 9th Korean Standard Industrial Classification (Notice No. 2007-53, Feb. 1, 2008) that applies at the time of the commencement of the taxable period of the value-added tax that is the object of the instant disposition, ‘business facility management and business support service', ‘ travelers and other travel support service business' are classified as follows:

N. Business facility management and business support service business;

74. Business facilities management and landscaping;

(hereinafter referred to as "serious")

75. Business support service;

751. Human resources supply and placement service (hereafter referred to as the "serious");

752. Travel agencies and other travel assistance services;

7521. Travel Services

75211. General and overseas travel projects

75212. Domestic travel business

7529. Other travel assistance and reservation services

75290 Other travel assistance and reservation services

753. Security service, security service and search service (hereinafter referred to as "second priority service");

759. Other business support service activities.

7591. Business assistance service activities

75911. Document making business

75911. Uniform business

75919 Other administrative support service business

7599 Other business support service activities

7591 Call Center and telereshing service business

7592. Exhibition and event agency business

7593. Credit Investigation and Collection Agency

7594 Packaging and filling business

7599 Other classified business support service activities

In addition, according to the explanation of the Korean Standard Industrial Classification, ‘general and overseas travel business' refers to the industrial activities of arranging the use of travel-related facilities, providing guidance on travel, concluding contracts by proxy and other convenience for tourists who travel in Korea and abroad, and as examples, ‘other travel assistance and reservation service business' refers to the industrial activities of providing other travel assistance services, such as the operation of tourist information and pool system, ticketing agency, accommodation arrangement, travel guide service, accommodation reservation agency. On the other hand, ‘other administrative assistance service business' refers to the daily administrative service activities such as preparation and recording activities at the request of customers, distribution of human resources and goods, and ‘other classified business assistance service activities' refers to industrial activities that are not classified differently, such as gas and electricity sales agency, merchandise coupon sales agency, merchandise coupon sales agency.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap's statements and arguments Nos. 3, 12, 13, 15 through 114, and Eul's evidence No. 4 (including various numbers), the main business structure between the plaintiff and a bbiet operated by the plaintiff is that when the plaintiff receives from domestic travel agents a reservation application for hotel accommodation, selective tourism, which is translated into English, then then Biet transmits the application form to bbiet after determining the reservation, and the plaintiff transfers the application form to bbiet with money collected from domestic travel agents, and Bbiet transfers the amount equivalent to 8% of the contract form to biet's accommodation fees to the plaintiff for the above services, and therefore, it is recognized that the plaintiff provided it is reasonable to biet to biet's alternative hotel accommodation, bi.e., the contract form between the plaintiff and Biet's alternative hotel accommodation, bi.e., the contract form of the plaintiff's alternative hotel accommodation, and other matters related to bi.bi.

On the other hand, as shown in the evidence Nos. 3-1, 2-1, 4, 6 through 11, 14, 114, and the evidence Nos. 3 (including each number), the Plaintiff’s performance of the business for supporting various management, such as the market situation survey, advertisement, publicity, employment support for internship employees, local trading agency (land), hosting, marketing, consulting, etc., it appears that the service provided to Bririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririri, or that it is merely an activity incidental to the business conducted in the process of mediating and arranging the reservation of hotel accommodation and selective tourism.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

2) Whether the instant service constitutes “foreign provision of zero-rate tax”

Article 20(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that “the place where the service is supplied is “the place where the service is provided or the goods, such as facilities and rights, are used.” Thus, whether a transaction subject to the zero-rate tax rate is determined on the basis of the place where the service is provided. If the place where the service is provided is located in Korea and abroad, the place where the important and essential parts of the service are provided shall be deemed the place where the service is provided (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Du7528, 7535, Jun. 16, 2006; 2014Du8766, Jan. 14, 2016).

According to the main business structure between Aa and Biet operated by the Plaintiff as seen earlier, the most important and essential part of the services provided by the Plaintiff to Bbiet shall be the Plaintiff’s receipt of a reservation application for hotel accommodation and selective tourism from the domestic tourr, which shall be translated into Biet in English and sent to Biiiet, and the fee stated in the written request shall be remitted to Biet with the money collected from the domestic tourr. Since the place where such activities are performed is all within the Plaintiff’s domestic place of business, it is reasonable to view the place where the instant services are provided to the Republic of Korea.

On the other hand, as shown in the evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 3, the Plaintiff’s argument that the zero-rate tax rate shall not be applied solely on the ground that the Plaintiff carried out a business trip in the Guam and Russia in order to hold a meeting with Biet or conduct overseas market surveys, and to hold a local transaction office (Russia).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.