(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.12 2014가합504064

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.12 2014가합504064

부가세 환급 대행 수수료지급 청구

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

The summary of the case is the plaintiff's claim that the defendant would receive value-added tax by entering into an agency service contract for the refund of Italian value-added tax in 2009 and 2010, and that the defendant would receive the refund of the value-added tax. The case is the claim that the plaintiff would pay the agreed fee according to the ratio of 13% for the refund of the year 2009 to 516,456 and 8,332,64.82 for the refund of the year 2009 to 226,846 for the refund of the year 2010 to 15%.

In fact, the plaintiff is a comprehensive accounting consulting company in Germany's Frankfurt Main.

The Plaintiff, as an agency for the refund of value-added tax in the European region with the Defendant, concluded an agency service contract with the Defendant, setting the contract period from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2009 with respect to the refund in 2008 and October 5, 2007, with respect to the refund in 2007 and 2008; and ② from June 30, 2009 to June 30, with respect to the refund in 2009, the contract period is from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 201; ③ the contract period is from June 1, 2010 to June 30, 201, with respect to the refund in 2010.

As of the fiscal year of value-added tax to be refunded, ① the 2007 and 2008 agency contract, ② the 2009 agency contract, ③ the 2010 agency contract.

2) According to the agency contract, the Plaintiff determined whether the Plaintiff’s personal information provided by the Defendant is eligible for refund, and performed all prior business affairs so that the Defendant can only sign the application for refund. In addition, the Plaintiff provided all advice to maximize the refund of value-added tax after confirming whether the transaction statement meets the requirements for the application for refund of value-added tax (Article 2 subparag. 1, the Plaintiff provided consultation on general tax/accounting advice arising in relation to the performance of duties at the Defendant’s request and against the tax office in the European country delegated by the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.12.04 2014나2048437

-의정부지방법원 2014.09.16 2013구합16291

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.06.27 2012고합1813

-서울행정법원 2013.12.03 2013구합18070

-대구지방법원 2012. 04. 25. 선고 2011구합2424 판결