Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap20666 (02.09)

Seocho 2010west 1352 (Law No. 29, 2011)

A subsidy that a call service provider provides call services to a taxi transportation business entity and receives on behalf of a local government shall not be included in the base of value-added tax.

The subsidy of this case is paid by Seoul Special Metropolitan City as a policy to foster brand call taxi operators, and it is not directly related to the provision of call services, etc. to taxi transportation business operators themselves. Accordingly, the subsidy of this case cannot be included in the value-added tax base as subsidies not directly related to the goods or services supplied by the Plaintiff.

Article 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Nu7020 Revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

AAAA

Head of the Do Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap20666 Decided February 9, 2012

January 22, 2013

February 1, 2013

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s refusal to refund KRW 000 of the scheduled return of value-added tax on January 23, 2010 against the Plaintiff on January 23, 201 is revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Refusal to refund value-added taxes;

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments, the following facts are recognized in the descriptions of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 1, and 2.

O In 209, the Plaintiff reported 60,751,023 won as tax refund on the ground that the Plaintiff was paid 000 won subsidies for brand call taxi from Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as “instant subsidies”).

O The Defendant paid the instant subsidy to a taxi transportation business entity other than the Plaintiff.

The subsidy of this case was included in the Plaintiff’s value-added tax base, and the amount of the tax refund amount reported by the Plaintiff was reduced to KRW 000.

C) Accordingly, on January 23, 2010, the Defendant made a disposition rejecting the refund of the remaining 00 won (i.e., KRW 000 - KRW 000 - KRW 0000, and less than KRW 100) while appropriating the Plaintiff’s tax amount in arrears, and the tax amount adjusted as above, as above, to the Plaintiff’s tax amount in arrears.

2. The plaintiff and defendant's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant subsidy is to support brand call taxi service providers, and the Plaintiff, who is such service provider, was paid by Seoul Special Metropolitan City pursuant to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Subsidy Management, and at the time, was not provided with applicable provisions under the Passenger Transport Service Act, and thus only took the form of receiving the instant subsidy from Seoul Special Metropolitan City and transferring it to the Plaintiff, or the Plaintiff’s receiving the instant subsidy on behalf of the taxi transport service provider. Thus, the instant subsidy is not included in the Plaintiff’s value-added tax base pursuant to Article 13(2)4 of the Value-Added Tax Act. Accordingly, the instant disposition is unlawful on the ground that the instant subsidy is included in the Plaintiff’s value-added tax base.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The plaintiff is a brand call taxi service provider, who is a member of the taxi transportation business entity;

The provision of call service was installed and provided, and when the taxi transportation business entity paid the price to the Plaintiff, the subsidy of this case that the taxi transportation business entity received from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, or the Plaintiff received from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City on behalf of the taxi transportation business entity, and the subsidy of this case is included in the Plaintiff’s additional tax base. Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate on the ground that the subsidy of this case is included in the Plaintiff’s

3. Relevant statutes;

(1) Article 13(2)4 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 13(2)4 of the Enforcement Decree provides for national subsidies and public subsidies as one that is not included in the tax base of value-added taxes. Article 48(10) of the Enforcement Decree provides that national subsidies that are not included in the tax base and public subsidies are not directly related to the supply of goods or services. The purpose of excluding the subsidies from the tax base is that, and that, in the event that the payer of the subsidy pays a policy subsidy to promote or facilitate a specific project without being directly supplied with the goods or services, the subsidy does not have any direct quid pro

(2) 한편으로 「서울특별시 보조금관리 조례」 제2조는，▲보조금이란 서울특별시 외의 자가 행하는 사무 또는 사업에 대해 서울특별시가 필요한 재원을 조성하거나 재정상의 보조를 하기 위해 교부하는 자금을 말하고，▲보조사업이란 보조금의 교부대상이 되는 사무 또는 사업을 말하며，▲보조사업자란 보조사업을 수행하는 자를 말한다고 규정하였다. 또한 위 조례 제4조는，▲법령에서 정하는 경우，▲국고보조재원에 따른 것으로서 국가가 지정한 경우，▲서울특별시가 권장하는 사업을 위하여 필요하다고 인정하는 경우에， 필요한 경비의 전부 또는 일부를 보조할 수 있다고 규정하였다.

4. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are recognized in full view of the initial arguments about Gap's three to 12, 14 to 16, 21 to 24, 26, and 3, and 4 (including household numbers) and the entire purport of the inquiry results in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor Mayor of the first instance court:

[1]

O Seoul Special Metropolitan City(O) established a plan for the promotion of brand taxi around April 2000 and established a plan for the improvement of taxi service in preparation for the 'Bed World Cup' around May 2001, and around November 2001, brand taxi was launched around February 2002 by selecting brand taxi operating business entities of brand taxi around brand taxi.

Around April 2002, Seoul Special Metropolitan City established a 1 brand taxi promotion plan, and subsidized 50 to 100% of the expenses that they pay to taxi transportation business entities who have joined brand taxis every month.

O There was considerable contribution such as the expansion of call service due to the operation of brand taxi, but it was judged that there was a lack of the ability of brand taxi to load, the productive and distribution method of brand taxi has deteriorated, while the brand taxi has decreased despite the Seoul Special Metropolitan City's re-suspension, it was insufficient for the settlement of call-out and use of taxi.

O In addition, it is identified that the call center operation is free business, there is no law applicable to the business order, and it is difficult to guide and provide call centers due to the lack of subsidies to call centers, while it is difficult to guide and support call centers, and in the case of private-taxies who join brandies, disputes with call centers related to call allocation and customer management, and it causes the consumption of administrative power in Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

[2]

"O 그러면서 서울특별시장이 2006. 7.경 '콜택시 기능활성'를 지시하였고， 서울특별시 가 2006. 12.경 '브랜드택시 및 콜택시 활성화방안'(갑 제11호증)을 마련하여，▲새브", 드 기준을 충족하는 우수 콜센터에의 직접 지원으로 전환하고，▲콜센터에 대한 평 가결과를 보조금 지급에 반영하기로 하였다.

O 2006. 12.경의 위 !브랜드택시 및 콜택시 활성화방안1에서는 ▲ 수천 명의 가입차량에 대한 운영비용 지원관련 행정엽무 부하가 과중하고， 콜배차 및 요금부과 등과 관련하여 운전자와 콜센터 사이에 분쟁이 빈발한다고 하면서，▲콜센터에의 직접 지원으로 전환하여 콜센터의 대형화 및 첨단화를 유도한다고 하였다.

"O 서울특별시는 2007. 1.경 시장방침 제30호로 l택시산업 활성화 종합대책'(갑 제4호증) 을 마련하여，▲지원방법을 콜센터에의 직접 지원으로 개선하고， ▲20071년에 콜센터에 000원을 지원하고， 추가지원을 검토하기로 하였다.", "O 서울특별시는 2007. 3.경 '브랜드콜택시 활성화계획'(갑 제15호증)을 마련하여，▲브랜드콜택시의 정착과 활성화를 위한 유인책으로 콜기기 장착비용과 운영비의 일부를 보조하고，▲관련기기 설치 및 개량 비용을 대당 20만 원 수준에서 일부 지원하는 것 을 검토하며，▲종전에 가입회원의 콜수행 건수에 따라 가입택시에 차등 지원하던 것",을 콜센터에 대한 운영비 보조로 변경하기로 하였다.

O 2007. 3.경의 위 '브랜드택시 활성화계획'에서는， ▲「여객자동차운수사업법」 에 의한 재정지원 대상을 확대하기 위하여 2006. 11.경과 2007. 1.경 호출시스템 등에 직접 지원이 가능한 내용으로 위 법률 및 시행규칙의 개정을 건설교통부에 건의하였다고 하면서，▲택시호출시스템 등 서비스 개선을 위한 시설 또는 장비의 확충 ・ 개선을 서울특별시 재정지원대상에 추가하는 조례개정을 입법예고 중이고，▲운영비 보조를 위해서는 관계법규의 개정이 필요하므로 개정 전까지는 「서울특별시 보조금관리 조례」 에 의거하여 현행과 같이 지원한다고 하였다.

[3]

O그 후 서울특별시가 2007. 3. 29. '브랜드콜택시의 새 운영기준에 따른 택시호출사업 자 모집' 공고(갑 제5호증)를 하여，▲브랜드콜택시의 새로운 운영기준을 제시하고， 이 에 부합하는 택시호출시스템(콜센터) 운영사업자를 육성하고자 한다고 하면서，▲예산 범위 내에서 택시호출시스템 설치 ・ 운영비용의 일부를 지원해 줄 예정인데，▲서울특별시가 당해 콜센터의 데이터베이스에 접속하여 콜수행 실적 등을 실시간으로 확인하여 브랜드별 운영실적 평가에 의한 인센티브 방식으로 지원하고，▲콜센터로서의 요건을 충족하지 못하는 경우에는 보조금 지급을 중단하거나 브랜드 지정을 취소할 것이라고 하였다.

"O Seoul Special Metropolitan City: around April 2007, distributed a new brand call taxi call service manual (Evidence A 12) and the content thereof are as follows:

O) As a result, Seoul Special Metropolitan City has prepared the ‘new operational criteria for brand call-si' (Evidence A No. 8), and the contents thereof are as follows:

(Contents). (Contents omitted)

[4]

O Seoul Special Metropolitan City (O) around May 2007, the Plaintiff and the BBnet, etc., a brand call taxi producer around 2007.

In November 2008, the plaintiff was designated as the above heading service provider.

O Seoul Special Metropolitan City inspected the operation and performance of the plaintiff et al., discussed active measures and other necessary matters, and provided administrative guidance to enable them to receive subsidies on behalf of the taxi carriers.

O 원고는 택시운송사업자들과 사이에 !CCCC 택시서비스 계약'을 체결하여，▲원고가 택시운송사업자에게 콜접수， 배차， 목적지 안내 등의 서비스를 제공하고，▲원고가 제 공하는 콜단말기를 가입택시에 장착하여 택시운송사업자가 무상으로 사용하며，▲계약이 해지되면 택시운송사업자가 원고에게 콜단말기를 반납하기로 약정하였다.

O 위 'CCCC 택시서비스 계약'에서는，▲서울특별시가 지급하는 보조금을 택시운송사 업자가 원고에게 전액 양도하고，▲택시운송사업자는 서울특별시에서 지급하는 지원금인 월운영비와 인센티브를 원고가 대리 수령하여 콜센터 운영비로 사용하는 데 동의 한다고 약정하였다.

[5]

O The plaintiff submitted the "application for subsidization to Seoul Special Metropolitan City" in his own name, and received the subsidy from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City for brand call taxi, and the above application was stated that the application for subsidization is applied in accordance with Article 5 (1) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Subsidy Management.

O In addition, the plaintiff submitted the status of the plaintiff's subscription vehicle, the current status of new admission and withdrawal, and the results of call processing by vehicle as subsidy application data to Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

O Accordingly, the Plaintiff received KRW 000 per unit with the call terminal subsidy from Seoul Special Metropolitan City and KRW 000 per unit with the call center operation subsidy.

O On July 30, 2009, the Plaintiff received 000 won of call terminal subsidies, and 000 won of call center operating subsidies, and received 000 won of call terminal subsidies and 000 won of call center operating subsidies on August 25, 2009, and received 000 won of the instant subsidies during the second period of 2009.

O) As above, the Plaintiff received subsidies from Seoul Special Metropolitan City, used call device purchase cost, call center operation cost, etc., and call device installed in a taxi to use without compensation by the taxi transportation business entity, and depreciated it as the Plaintiff’s assets, and received 00 won success fees per case from the taxi transportation business entity in cases where passengers board a taxi by providing call service.

5. Determination

(a) Policy of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City;

(1) On April 202, Seoul Special Metropolitan City established the 200 brand service promotion policy, and subsidized 50-10% of the expenses to be paid to taxi transport business operators who have joined the brand taxi service (the 20th brand service) each month. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City changed the 20th brand service route to the 3rd brand service operating criteria (the 2nd brand service provider) and the 3rd brand service provider's 4th brand service operation policy, and the 4th brand service provider's 7th brand service operation policy, and the 2nd model service provider's 7th brand service operation policy, and the 3rd brand service provider's 2nd brand service operation policy, and the 2nd model service provider's 7th brand service operation policy, and the 2nd model service provider's 2nd model service, and the 3th model service provider's 2nd model operation policy, and the 3th model service provider's 2nd model operation policy, and the 3th model service provider's 2nd service.

(b) Acts and municipal ordinances;

(1) On the other hand, in order to expand financial support targets under the Passenger Transport Service Act, the above brand taxi promotion plan prepared by Seoul Special Metropolitan City around March 2007 (Evidence No. 15) was recommended to the Ministry of Construction and Transportation to revise the above Act and the Enforcement Rule to the extent that direct support is possible on and around November 2006 and around January 2007 in order to expand financial support targets under the Passenger Transport Service Act, and the revision of the ordinances added to the financial support targets for the expansion and improvement of facilities or equipment for the service opening, such as the taxi shipping system, was in pre-announcement of legislation, and the revision of the relevant regulations is required to provide support in accordance with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies for the purpose of operating expenses. Moreover, the above "New brand taxi shipping service promotion plan distributed by Seoul Special Metropolitan City around April 2007" to the previous business operators, as amended by the previous regulations, prior to the amendment.

(2) The above provision of the Passenger Transport Service Act provides that "the State may provide subsidies or loans to those operating "passenger transport service" in certain cases (Article 51), and these "passenger transport service" means passenger transport business, rent-a-car business, and passenger vehicle terminal business (Article 2), and the plaintiff as at the time of 2007 does not constitute "passenger transport service" and does not include government subsidies or loans under the above Act. However, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Subsidy Management provides that "where it is deemed necessary for the business recommended by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, as designated by the State, it is not possible to provide subsidies to the plaintiff and the 3-year government subsidy service operator who did not meet the above policy objectives of the 0-year subsidy service, and if it is considered necessary for the business recommended by the government, it is not possible to provide the 10-year subsidy service to the plaintiff and the 3-year subsidy service operator who did not meet the 11-year brand service operation policy, and it is not possible to provide the 4-year subsidy service operation policy to the plaintiff and the 15-year subsidy service operator.

(c) Granting subsidies;

(1) However, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, however, provided administrative guidance to the requesting service providers of the Plaintiff, etc. to receive subsidies on behalf of the taxi transportation business entities. In addition, it is recognized that the Plaintiff agreed that the taxi transportation business entity will transfer the subsidies that the Seoul Special Metropolitan City would pay to the Plaintiff in full, and that the taxi transportation business entity would agree to receive monthly operating expenses and incentives, which are subsidies that the Seoul Special Metropolitan City would pay to the Plaintiff, and that the taxi transportation business entity would receive subsidies from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, on behalf of the Plaintiff, to use them as call center operating expenses. In addition, according to the entries of the 4 and 5 evidence, the Seoul Special Metropolitan

(2) However, the Plaintiff submitted the “application for subsidies to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City on its own name” to receive brand call taxi subsidies from Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the said application for subsidies was stated that the Plaintiff applied for subsidies pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Seoul Special City Ordinance on Subsidy Management. In addition, the Plaintiff submitted the application data for subsidies to Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the basis of the official text of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the status of the Plaintiff’s subscription vehicle, the status of new subscription and departure, and the results of call disposal by vehicle. Article 5(1) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Subsidy Management provides that a person who intends to operate a subsidy shall apply for subsidies to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor on the budget, and Article 12 of the above Ordinance provides that a person who intends to receive a subsidy shall submit an application stating the purpose and content of the subsidy, the expenses needed for the subsidy, and other necessary matters. According to the above circumstances, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City appears to have paid subsidies to the Plaintiff, who is a call service provider, and this is not possible to achieve the policy goals of the call service provider itself.

According to the revised 207.3. 29. 1. 29. 1. 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 2. 3. 3. 1. 3. 1. 3. 1. 3. 1. 1. 2. 3. 3. 1. 1. 3. 3. 1. 1. 3. 3. 1. 1. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 3. 1. 1. 1. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2, 206 . 1. 1. 1. 2, 2006 . 1. 3. 3. 1. 1. 1. 3. 3, 2007 . 3. 1. 3. 3. 3. 3 . 6. 3. 3 2. . 6. 3 . 3. 3. . . 3. 2. 3 . . . . . 3 3 . . . . . 2. . 3. . . 3. . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ ................. ............................................ ........................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

(5) If so, as seen earlier by Seoul Special Metropolitan City, administrative guidance should be given to the heading service provider of the plaintiff et al. to receive subsidies on behalf of the heading service provider, and the agreement made between the plaintiff and the heading service provider of the plaintiff et al. to that effect is concluded in accordance with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies, and it seems that Seoul Special Metropolitan City recognizes the heading service provider of the plaintiff et al. as a subsidized service provider and grants subsidies to him/her in consideration of the provisions of the Passenger Transport Service Act before the amendment, and it is difficult to accept the above response content of Seoul Special Metropolitan City that the heading service provider of the plaintiff et al. recognized as having been granted subsidies to the head service provider of the plaintiff et al. and that

D. Disposition of this case

(1) In full view of the above, the instant subsidy is recognized to have been paid by the Plaintiff, who is a brand call taxi service provider, in accordance with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Subsidy Management, and the instant subsidy is paid to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City in order to foster brand call taxi service providers. However, the Plaintiff received call terminal subsidies from Seoul Special Metropolitan City, from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, KRW 00 per unit of device, KRW 00 per unit of device, and KRW 00 per unit of call center operation subsidy, used call terminal purchase expenses, call center operation expenses, etc., and the call terminal was installed in the subscription taxi and used by the taxi transportation business entity for free use by the Plaintiff, and was paid 00 won for each case from the taxi transportation business entity when the passenger gets on board. In addition, according to the results of the fact-finding conducted by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City court of the first instance, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff provided call call service to the taxi transportation business entity itself as consideration for call service operation expenses.

(2) If so, the Plaintiff did not supply goods or services to Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is the payer of the instant subsidy, and the instant subsidy was paid by Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the purpose of fostering the brand call taxi service provider, and there is no direct quid pro quo between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s provision of call services, etc. to taxi transport business operators. Therefore, the instant subsidy is a subsidy not directly related to the Plaintiff’s goods or services supplied by the Plaintiff, and it cannot be included in the Plaintiff’s value-added tax base, and the instant disposition on the ground that the instant subsidy was included in the Plaintiff’s value-added tax base

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, and it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling the judgment of the court of first instance and accepting the plaintiff's claim.