early 2011west 1449 ( October 27, 2011)

Value-added tax is paid on behalf of a foreign corporation with no domestic place of business when the fee for publication is paid.

Since it is reasonable to see that the non-party company, a copyright holder, has continued to have a right of publication and agreed on a license agreement with the plaintiff, the non-party company is obligated to pay the value-added tax on behalf of the plaintiff, since it supplied services such as the use of publication

Article 7 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Guhap31796 Disposition of revocation of Value-Added Tax Imposition

XX

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

June 15, 2012

July 6, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 for the second period of February 19, 201 against the Plaintiff on February 19, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 12, 2006, the plaintiff entered into a publication contract (hereinafter referred to as "the contract of this case") with respect to the books of "R" and "H" located in the New York State of the United States (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company") on the following terms (hereinafter referred to as "each of the books of this case"). On December 15, 2006, the non-party company paid US$ 000 (limited to US$ 000) to the non-party company on December 19, 201. However, on February 19, 2011, the defendant imposed the non-party company's disposition of value-added tax (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of this case") on the plaintiff's supply of services subject to value-added tax for which the non-party company is allowed to use each of the books of this case under the contract of this case.

C. The Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition on April 17, 2011, but was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on June 27, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the instant contract is a transfer contract of the right of publication under a repurchase agreement, it does not constitute a supply of services subject to value-added tax. Therefore, the instant disposition, which is premised on it, is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) According to Articles 7(1) and 34(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142 of Dec. 30, 2006), allowing a foreign corporation with no domestic place of business [in the case of an individual, the foreign corporation without a domestic place of business (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20323 of Oct. 15, 2007) exempted from value-added tax pursuant to subparagraph 1(h) of Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act] to use the right is the supply of services and the supply of value-added tax as an agent for value-added tax. A contract related to publication is a contract for authorization of publication (the copyright holder permits publication to do so to do so and the publisher bears the rights and obligations to reproduce and distribute it on his own account) and a quasi-property right contract aimed at establishing the publication right concluded between the author of the publication right and the publisher. As such, the publisher is entitled to exclusive and exclusive right of reproduction and right of reproduction separately from the original copyright owner or copyright owner.

In light of the content of a provision and the type of contract related to publishing, publishing under a license agreement is supplied with the service of using the right of publication, which is subject to value-added tax. However, publishing under the license agreement or a copyright transfer agreement does not constitute value-added tax because it is not supplied with the service of exclusively and exclusively exercising the right of publication. Furthermore, in interpreting the copyright agreement, if it is unclear whether it is a license agreement or a copyright transfer agreement, it is reasonable to presume that the right has been reserved for the author if it is not externally expressed, and if the content of the contract is unclear, it is reasonable to interpret the content of the contract by taking into account transaction practices, the knowledge and behavior of the parties, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da29130, Jul. 30, 1996).

(2) In the instant case, there are provisions such as the “contract on the ownership of the right of publication” (Article 1), “transfer of the right of publication (Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, and 9), “transfer cost” (Article 8), and “transfer cost of the right of publication after the expiration of the contract period” (Article 13).

① On the other hand, this case’s agreement constitutes a so-called contract for use of copyrighted works (hereinafter “instant contract”). The Plaintiff asserts that it is an installment contract, and there is no evidence that this amount has been actually paid). The contract is not a copyright transfer contract, but a license agreement for use (right or author’s property right). In the former case’s tax rate of 10% in the first instance case, 12.5% in the judgment (5,000 but less than 10,000 copies), 15% in the case of publication, and 10,000 copies in the case of publication x 10% in the case of publication x 10% in the case of publication by the Plaintiff’s exclusive right for use of copyrighted works (the Plaintiff’s exclusive right for use of copyrighted works x 10% in the case of publication works x 10% in the case of publication works x 5% in the case of non-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-------party-party-party--party-party-party-party--party----------------------------------------------------

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.