Seocho 2012,0416 (201.02.01)

At least before the amendment of the terms and conditions, the discount amount of this case is included in the base of value added tax as incentives or similar, rather than Enurira.

On April 15, 2010, the Plaintiff had an implied agreement between the Plaintiff and the seller on the basis of sales commission fees calculated based on normal sales prices until the amendment of the above terms and conditions, considering the following: (a) the Plaintiff clearly stated that the amount of human rights to be paid by amending the terms and conditions of a seller would be excluded from the criteria for calculating sales commission; and (b) the Plaintiff reported and paid the value-added tax accordingly.

Article 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 52 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Guhap12157 Disposition rejecting the rectification of value-added tax

AAAA Ghana Co., Ltd.

Head of Seocho Tax Office

June 28, 2013

July 26, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On September 30, 201, the Defendant revoked the disposition of refusal to make a request for reduction or correction for the amount of value-added tax of KRW 000, KRW 000, KRW 000, KRW 1 value-added tax of KRW 2008, KRW 000, KRW 000, and KRW 000, KRW 1 value-added tax of KRW 200, and KRW 000, value-added tax of KRW 200, which was imposed by the Plaintiff on September 30, 201.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as an operator of the so-called open market-type Internet shopping mall, provided all services necessary for transactions, such as registration, search, orders, payment, tracking, marketing, return, and verification issuance, so that the Plaintiff can trade goods and services in the Internet shopping mall, and received the prescribed sales commission calculated according to the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff’s seller from the seller to the seller and the unspecified number of buyers registered as the purchaser members.

(B) In order to promote transactions through AA, the Plaintiff implemented a system of human rights to goods at a certain amount or at a certain rate out of the sales price of goods for all purchasing members who purchase specific goods (hereinafter referred to as "professive human rights"). The Plaintiff paid value-added tax related to sales commission (hereinafter referred to as "the taxable period in this case") on July 26, 201 with the sales commission to be deducted from sales commission to be received from sales members, and with the sales commission calculated on the basis of normal sales price as value-added tax base for the Plaintiff’s sales commission from the first to the second half of 2009.

The Enforcement Decree(hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree"), which corresponds to the discount amount as provided in Article 13(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree and Article 52(2) of the Enforcement Decree(hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree"). In 2007, 000 won among the first value-added tax, 000 won among the second value-added tax, 000 among the second value-added tax in 2008, and 000 won among the second value-added tax in 2009, and 000 won among the second value-added tax in 2009.

D. On September 30, 201, the Defendant: (a) on September 30, 201, the sales commission reported by the Plaintiff as the value-added tax base for the instant taxable period was in accordance with the terms and conditions of sales before the change of sales commission calculated on the basis of sales commission for the application of human rights; and (b) the Plaintiff issued and issued a tax invoice with the sales commission calculated on the basis of sales proceeds before applying human rights to the seller; and (c) so long as the seller deducts the input tax accordingly, the Plaintiff and the seller agreed that the sales amount before applying human rights should be considered as the value-added tax base; and (d) as the Plaintiff accounts for the sales promotion cost, the amount of the sales should be included in the value-added tax base (hereinafter

E. On December 29, 201, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal on December 29, 201, but the tax tribunal dismissed the appeal on February 1, 2013 on the same ground as the Defendant.

[Basis of Recognition] Facts without dispute, evidence 1, 2, and 2 of evidence 1, and evidence 1 through 6, and fact that there is no dispute.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Under the principle of substantial taxation, the discount amount under the application of human rights under the application of human rights should be considered to be the discount amount under Article 13 (2) 1 of the Act, and in particular, the Tax Tribunal considers the discount amount under the discount amount under the item discount amount of a corporation Ebry Korea, a corporation with business structure such as the Plaintiff, as the amount of discount, and thus, it accords with the principle of tax equality or the principle of final non-taxation. Therefore, the discount amount under the application of human rights should be deducted from the tax base of value-added tax on the Plaintiff’s seller, and the disposition of this case should be revoked on a different premise.

B. Relevant statutes

Paper in the Appendix

C. Facts of recognition

(1) Prior to amendment by April 15, 2010, the main contents of the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff’s seller are as follows.

(A) The terms and conditions of the open market service contract between the Plaintiff and the seller are the basic agreements between the Plaintiff and the seller. The Plaintiff may, if necessary, determine and publicly notify the matters to be applied to specific business services (hereinafter referred to as "individual terms and conditions"). In the event that the seller consents to such individual terms and conditions and uses specific services, the individual terms and conditions are preferentially applied, and these terms and conditions have complementary effects (Article 1).

(B) In the case of notification to a large number of unspecified sellers, it may be substituted by posting it on the Plaintiff’s bulletin board or open market seller’s store for at least one week (Article 10).

(C) A seller shall be deemed to have consented to any system that the Plaintiff implements for the purpose of marketing and increase in sales in the management of information on goods unless he/she raises any special objection (Article 16).

(d) The selling price of the goods shall be determined by the seller. The fees imposed by the Plaintiff shall be divided into the advertising effect of the goods, registration fees, and open market system usage fees provided by the Plaintiff, and service fees, and sales fees and other fees. The details of each service and service fees shall be separately posted on the service screen in question. Sales fees shall be charged to the seller in the quantity determined by each product category (Article 17).

(2) On April 15, 2010, the major contents of the amended seller’s terms and conditions are as follows:

(a)The selling price of the good shall be determined by the seller. However, in the case of using the discount right, the selling price shall be based on the amount obtained by subtracting the discount amount.

(B) The Plaintiff may issue and apply discount tickets in consultation with the seller, and where the buyer uses them (excluding where a single seller discountss the sales price without consultation with the Plaintiff), the sales commission shall be based on the amount obtained by subtracting the amount of human rights to be sold from the sales price.

(3) The phrase “the screen for the settlement management of accounts of the seller”, which is an individual clause on the Plaintiff’s sales commission applied in the instant taxable period, is posted to determine the settlement amount to be paid to the seller, after deducting the right of discount instead of the normal sales commission, when the right of discount is applied.

(4) In the instant taxable period, the Plaintiff possessed only the remainder of the sales commission calculated on the basis of normal sales prices less the amount corresponding to the discount from the sales commission, among the sales commission for the goods to which the discount right applies, as sales commission, and paid both the sales commission to the seller, and the seller reported and paid the value-added tax based on the sales commission calculated on the normal sales price as the tax base, and the seller has received input tax deduction by using the sales tax invoice calculated accordingly. In addition, the Plaintiff accounts for the amount corresponding to the discount right as sales promotion cost.

(5) On the other hand, on April 15, 2009, the Plaintiff asked the National Tax Service on whether the instant discount amount constitutes the value-added tax base, and the National Tax Service responded on September 29 of the same year that such discount amount is included in the tax base as the seller’s product marketing price and the sales commission of the Internet shopping mall operator.

[Basis of Recognition] The facts without dispute, the evidence adopted earlier, and evidence Eul 7 to 10, and the whole purport of the pleading

D. Determination

The issues of this case, and the issue of this case are whether the discount amount in this case would be excluded from the value added tax base by considering it as the discount amount under Article 13 (2) 1 of the Act and Article 52 (2) of the Enforcement Decree, and whether it should be included in the tax base by considering it as the incentives under Article 13 (3) of the Act or other similar amounts, and the facts recognized earlier, and the following facts revealed:

Considering that the instant discount amount is rather than the discount amount, it is reasonable to view that the instant discount amount is an incentive or a similar amount under Article 13(3) of the Act as being included in the value-added tax base. Therefore, the instant disposition on the same premise is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(1) In the Internet commercial transactions using open market like the Plaintiff, there exist two transactions between the seller and the buyer, and between the Plaintiff and the seller, and in the above two transactions, the value-added tax base should not be matched or linked as a matter of course. In other words, even if the amount equivalent to human rights between the seller and the buyer falls under a discount amount, in determining the price for the provision of services, the amount equivalent to the value for the provision of services should be deducted as a matter of course between the Plaintiff and the seller, and in such a case, the amount determined by the Plaintiff and the seller should be determined by agreement between the Plaintiff and the seller, and it conforms to the principle of substantial taxation or the principle of final non-taxation.

(2) The agreement between the Plaintiff and the seller shall be concluded in the form of agreement between the seller of the terms and conditions established by the Plaintiff and the seller. In the event that the Plaintiff and the seller have made an individual agreement contrary thereto, the separate agreement takes precedence over it. In addition, if there is a clear provision on how to compute the price for the service provision of the seller’s terms and conditions established by the Plaintiff, the agreement shall be followed, and if there is no or insufficient indication thereon, the intention of the Plaintiff and the seller shall not be inferred on the basis of the actual

(3) However, the Plaintiff and the seller calculated the sales commission based on the product price before the discount in the instant taxable period, and reported and paid the value-added tax as the tax base for value-added tax, and the seller received the input tax deduction using the sales tax invoice issued and delivered as such, and the Plaintiff accounts for the amount equivalent to discount rights out of the sales commission as the sales promotion cost, and the Plaintiff reported and paid the value-added tax accordingly, considering the fact that the Plaintiff clearly stated that the amount equivalent to the human rights amount to be paid by amending the terms and conditions of the seller on April 15, 2010 should be excluded from the sales commission calculation standard, and that there was an implied agreement between the Plaintiff and the seller to use the sales commission calculated based on the normal sales price until the amendment to the above drug section was made.

(4) Meanwhile, as seen earlier, sales commission, the price for the provision of services between the Plaintiff and the seller, can be determined in a different way by agreement between the parties. Therefore, depending on the Internet shopping mall operator, the price for the provision of services may be determined based on the actual sales price at which the discount right is applied under an agreement with the seller, and the value-added tax base varies depending on the difference in the details of such specific agreement, cannot be said to contravene the principle

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party.