1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On November 5, 2015, the Defendant’s value-added tax for the second half-year portion against the Plaintiff on November 5, 2015 8,955.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which partially accepted the part of the judgment, is as follows: (a) the reasons for the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, are as follows: (b) the 3rd 12th tier out of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance; (c) the 4rd 1, and 2nd 1st 2 each, as “(1) classification of business facility management and business support service activities”; and (d) the 6rd 9 to 8th 13th 2nd 13th 2nd 2nd 3rd 3rd 199

(2) The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) according to each agreement entered into between C and D operated by the Plaintiff, D designated C as a branch office in Korea, and provided accommodation facilities, hotel hotel selective experience activities, and offered passenger room reservation services, sales promotion services, and active marketing services (Dagre to the Special Act on the Protection, etc. for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, which has been reported to Korea in lag to the Special Act on the Protection, etc. for Purpose of Maom Accom (hereinafter omitted). In return for these marketing services, the Plaintiff agreed to receive the amount equivalent to 8% of the passenger room fee for domestic tourists each month, the accommodation gift certificates equivalent to US$100, and the airline tickets and accommodation for holding in Gug.

② Upon receipt of D’s request from domestic travel agents for the number of hotels pursuant to the above agreement, the Plaintiff integrated the translation and sent it to D, and transferred accommodation fees received from domestic travel agencies, thereby taking full charge of the reservation of D’s rooms in the Republic of Korea.

The plaintiff only settled the amount of accommodation which was remitted after the rent and received an amount equivalent to 8% from D, and it is not possible to collect fees from the travel agents or travel agents for the vicarious reservation of guest rooms.

③ The Plaintiff, as a domestic branch or agency of D, was in charge of D’s reservation for guest rooms, and did not act as an agent for other accommodation facilities or sell D’s accommodation products directly to individual tourists.

On the other hand, Korea.