Leebus Korea Co., Ltd. (Attorney Ba-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Head of the District Tax Office (Government Law Firm Corporation, Attorney Cho Byung-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

November 5, 2013

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 201Guhap20390, 2012Guhap10819 (merged), 2012Guhap31229 (Consolidated) decided January 25, 2013

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The part of each disposition in which the Defendant made against the Plaintiff (attached Form) the details of imposition of value-added tax, which exceeds the stated amount, shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition as stated in paragraph (2) below. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

In Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance court, the term "balo" in Part 9, the term "sib" in Part 9, the term "sib" in Part 28, and the term "(sales activities of sales members)" in Part 10, the term "(service fees)" in Part 27, respectively.

In Part 11 of the Decision of the first instance court, "A" shall be added to "sales activities" in Part 14 of the Decision of the first instance, and "A" shall be added to "the taxable period" in Part 17, 5.

In addition, the part of the entry in Part 3 to 7 of the first instance judgment in Part 19 is as follows.

② Bounty is money and other valuables paid to the other party to a transaction for business promotion without connection with individual transactions or the price thereof. However, the amount of deduction in this case is directly deducted from service charges for service transactions made between the Plaintiff and the sales member as the amount discounted from the transaction of goods conducted by the Plaintiff with the consent of the sales member, according to the formula that the Plaintiff implemented under the consent of the sales member.

In addition, the part of the entry in Part 3 to 5 of the first instance judgment in Part 20 is as follows.

(2) In the case of an item discount or coophones, all of which are the same as the process and effect of the discount of items and the coophones on the discount of sales proceeds and service charges, such as the discount of sales proceeds of the goods as a result of the discount of sales proceeds of the goods, and the discount of service charges as the equivalent amount;

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission of Imposition of Value-Added Tax]

Judicial Enforcement Decree of Judges (Presiding Judge)