Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-50832 ( August 28, 2015)

Whether the total amount of the relevant logistics expenses is the input tax amount related to taxable projects

As it is reasonable to view that the services supplied by the Plaintiff from the logistics agency under the instant logistics agency contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the logistics agency include the services related to the Plaintiff's goods distribution business other than the services supplied by the Plaintiff to the subcontractor, the goods distribution service cost (purchase tax amount) paid by the Plaintiff is not corresponding to the goods sales commission received from the supplier agency.

Article 40 (Proportional Distribution of Common Purchase Tax Amount)

2015Nu5527 Revocation of Disposition Rejecting Value-Added Tax Correction

According to Article 6 (6) of the direct purchase transaction contract, a subcontractor supplies goods to a logistics warehouse;

After the completion of the inspection, the delivery becomes final and conclusive, and thus, the inventory management work for the subsequent goods shall be conducted by the plaintiff.

section 4.2 of the logistics agency agreement of this case

According to the reasoning, goods simply via logistics warehouses and goods delivered after being stored in logistics warehouses shall be the Gu.

In other words, the time of shipment is determined differently, and according to Section 4.5 of the 4.5, the inventory kept in the logistics warehouse.

The volume shall be based on the 12-day average daily delivery volume, and shall consult with each other if the volume exceeds that.

under subsection 7 of section 4.7, the logistics agency shall conduct regular inventory inspections.

(1) It is necessary to improve and coordinate the contents of the direction of the Plaintiff in a white manner to the Plaintiff.

In light of the above circumstances, the logistics agency is defined as the partner company.

from the date of simply being supplied as a logistics warehouse to the extent that the goods are stored and delivered;

In addition, it can be seen that the management of inventory is carried out closely with the direction of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the goods storage (stock management) service is to be delivered by the collaborative company to the goods.

It can not be seen as a simple storage work that can be inevitably accompanied by others.

Of course, the partner company does not use the plaintiff's logistics warehouse and is located in each national territory.

s even in the case of delivering goods directly to customers by any store, goods handling store, or club operator;

Switzerland It is necessary to identify the order of the plaintiff and classify it for each place of delivery and keep it.

C. However, in the above cases, the classification and storage work performed by the collaborative entity is its own.

On the contrary, the plaintiff is limited to the affairs inevitably incidental to the delivery service.

The storage (stock management) of the goods prior to the processing of the goods through the logistics agency;

including much more detailed and diverse inventory management work to be performed by the Plaintiff supplied with the goods

Since they are now, they can not be regarded as the same business.

5. The Plaintiff’s sales of goods by its own name to its customers;

Since they are sold, in relation to the relationship between the plaintiff and the goods-handling store or the customer of the club; and

The Plaintiff is liable for the goods. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s goods handling store through the goods distribution agency.

If a club business entity collects goods from its customers and transports them to a logistics warehouse, the plaintiff

agency for a subcontractor that has supplied the original product without performing his/her duties;

It is not that.

6. The plaintiff's direct management store, goods handling store, or club business operator's customer under his/her own name

In connection with the supply of goods, the provision of goods to the customer, the provision of goods to the customer,

After all, logistics agencies deal with affairs such as computer processing, etc. on behalf of the plaintiff.

The subject who supplies or supplies the goods, such as the processing of slips or electronic data processing;

It is reasonable to view the Plaintiff’s work as the Plaintiff’s work.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be concluded.

Since it is improper to accept the defendant's appeal and revoke the judgment of the first instance court, the plaintiff's appeal is revoked.

The judgment is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

OOO

O Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap50832 decided August 28, 2015

July 14, 2016

August 18, 2016

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s value-added tax of KRW 000 on January 16, 2014 against the Plaintiff on January 16, 2012

The rejection of correction shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Partial citement of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 8(2) and 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following: (b) the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 4 through 8 and 13). As such, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical.

The following matters shall be added to the contents of logistics services, the logistics warehouse, the stores of goods in the direct management, under the third list of the judgment of the court of first instance:

AA club business operators' customer collaborative enterprises shall deliver them through their own delivery services.

4. The trustee (logistics agency) shall deliver the goods (TC) subject to a contract (D-1.00 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 a.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.00 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.0 p.s.

(iii) omitted.

4) A trustee shall put into storage and management on the basis of the following subparagraphs:

(1) A tallying and measuring product at the time of storage into a normal and low temperature product shall be conducted, and when any abnormal product is discovered, the truster's instructions shall be performed.

(5) The inventory of the trustee's logistics center shall be based on 12 days' average daily delivery quantity (TC and DC total quantity) and, if exceeding this, shall proceed through mutual consultation.

6) omitted

7) A trustee shall conduct a regular inventory inspection on the basis of the content of each subparagraph and conduct inventory adjustment on the contents instructed by the trustor to the trustor, as in accordance with the standard form (hereinafter omitted).

2. Parts that vary from the judgment of the first instance court;

D. Determination

1) Articles 17(1) and 17(2)6 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11608, Jan. 1, 2013) provide that the input tax amount to be paid by an entrepreneur shall be the amount calculated by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount; however, the input tax amount related to the goods and services that are exempt from the value-added tax shall not be deducted from the output tax amount; and Article 61(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24076, Aug. 31, 2012) delegated by an entrepreneur under Article 61(7) provides that where an entrepreneur concurrently operates a taxable business and a tax-free business, the computation of the input tax amount related to the tax-free business shall be based on the actual attribution, but an input tax amount (common input tax amount) related to the tax-free business shall be calculated by the formula of the common input tax amount 】

2) In accordance with the above statutory provisions, the issue of this case is whether the input tax amount of this case (A) is a common input tax amount that is used not only for a taxable business but also for a goods distribution business that is a concurrent business with taxation and tax exemption, and whether it is a common input tax amount that is not distinguishable from the actual attribution. The issue of actual attribution depends on whether the goods or services in question were used in any business sector within the country and actually made effective use.

3) In light of the following circumstances seen earlier and the overall purport of the arguments, it is reasonable to view that the services provided by the logistics agency under the instant logistics agency agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the logistics agency include the Plaintiff’s services related to the Plaintiff’s goods distribution business in addition to the services provided by the subcontractor. The Plaintiff’s sales of the Plaintiff’s goods distribution business should be excluded from the input tax deduction in proportion to the ratio of sales of the Plaintiff’s goods among the sales of the goods distribution business. Accordingly, the first Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is unacceptable.

A) The most simple form in the transaction between the Plaintiff and collaborative companies is that the collaborative companies keep the goods to be supplied according to the Plaintiff’s order in their own logistics warehouse, but the collaborative companies complete the delivery by individually delivering the goods to the Plaintiff’s direct stores, goods handling stores, or the customers of the club business. However, since it is difficult for the collaborative companies to directly deliver the goods to the Plaintiff’s customers across the country, it is difficult for the collaborative companies to enter into a distribution agency contract with the Plaintiff and deliver the goods directly to the Plaintiff, and then the collaborative companies are carrying out the subsequent delivery services on behalf of the Plaintiff when they deliver the goods to the Plaintiff’s logistics warehouse. However, since the Plaintiff does not own logistics warehouse, it does not have the basis for nationwide transportation with the Plaintiff, the instant logistics agency concluded the instant logistics agency contract with the Plaintiff, and made the said logistics agency to act on behalf of the Plaintiff’s direct stores, goods handling stores, or club business operators after having the goods stored in the logistics warehouse.

B) If a collaborative company assumes the form of direct operation or delivery by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff’s customer, the collaborative company’s services that the collaborative company is required to provide to the Plaintiff in relation to the supply of the goods are directly operated by the Plaintiff, the goods handling store, the delivery to the Plaintiff’s customer, and the return of the goods from the Plaintiff’s direct management store. However, in the actual form of delivery by the collaborative company via the Plaintiff’s logistics warehouse, the collaborative company enters the goods into the Plaintiff’s logistics warehouse and thereby completing the collaborative company’s business (in the case of return of the goods, the part of the goods collected by the collaborative company from the logistics warehouse goes beyond the Plaintiff’s business territory and is not at issue in the instant case). Since then, the business from the logistics warehouse to the Plaintiff’s direct operation or the goods handling store or the customers of the club is conducted by the Plaintiff through the logistics agency, including the Plaintiff’s storage and inspection of the goods in the logistics warehouse, the storage of the goods (stock management), the handling and classification of orders, electronic processing, and the delivery of the goods, etc.

C) We examine whether the business conducted in the course of the supply of logistics agency services through the logistics agency for the subcontractors after the Plaintiff entered the goods in the logistics warehouse is limited to the business conducted by the original subcontractor or includes the Plaintiff’s unique business necessary for the Plaintiff’s goods distribution business.

① As stipulated in Article 6(1) of the instant direct purchase transaction agreement, a collaborative company is obligated to deliver goods to the Plaintiff’s store or designated place. As such, the delivery business is a collaborative company’s business. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s direct operation of the Plaintiff, or the delivery business of goods stored in a logistics warehouse through a logistics agency to the Plaintiff’s store or goods handling store or the A club’s customer should be deemed as a collaborative company’s agency.

② The Plaintiff’s logistics agency provides orders for goods to be supplied to the Plaintiff’s direct stores, goods handling stores, or club entrepreneurs. It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s business for the operation of the Plaintiff’s goods distribution business is the Plaintiff’s business. Therefore, the goods order business cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff’s business for the operation of the Plaintiff’s goods distribution business by proxy.

③ It is reasonable to deem that the business of entering the ordered goods into a logistics warehouse and conducting tallying and inspection is the business that the Plaintiff, who purchased the goods, should perform. It is difficult to see that the subcontractor who sold the goods to examine the quantity and defects of the goods sold by the Plaintiff, and thus, the storage and inspection of the goods should be deemed the Plaintiff’s business, not the subcontractor’s business. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff performed the above business through the logistics agency, it cannot be deemed that the subcontractor’s business

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the examination work conducted in a logistics warehouse is merely a formal procedure and is naturally conducted in the process of suffering goods, and it is included in the scope of logistics agency service provided by the plaintiff to the subcontractor. However, Article 6(6) of the direct purchase contract of this case provides that "the time when the delivery becomes final shall be the time when the supplier (contractor) delivers the goods to the buyer (the plaintiff)'s logistics warehouse or the buyer's store and the buyer completes the examination." The delivery becomes final upon completion of the examination of the goods, and the delivery becomes final upon completion of the examination of the goods. In addition, in relation to the scope of the logistics agency service in the logistics agency contract of this case, there was a separate item of "the goods (tally, inspected, and adjusted by storage)" designated by the consignee (the plaintiff) and the goods supplied by the consignee (the consignee) and low temperature and low temperature DC goods, and therefore, the plaintiff's duty cannot be included in the type and duty of examination of the goods. Therefore, the plaintiff's duty cannot be included in the logistics agency.

However, the tally conducted by the Plaintiff’s direct management store is limited to the goods delivered to the Plaintiff’s stores directly operated, and the goods supplied to the Plaintiff’s stores dealing with goods or the customers of the club business are promptly delivered to the Plaintiff’s stores dealing with goods or the customers of the club business, and thus, the Plaintiff’s direct management cannot be examined in that it directly operated by the Plaintiff. Moreover, it is difficult to conclude that the tally conducted in the logistics warehouse is formal since the tally conducted

(4) It is reasonable to deem that the business of storage of goods in a logistics warehouse is the Plaintiff’s business that the Plaintiff needs to conduct in order to engage in the goods distribution business. As seen earlier, as seen earlier.