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 2, 2012

1. The Defendant’s revocation of the part exceeding the cancelled tax out of each disposition on imposition of value-added tax in attached Form 1 against the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The text shall be as shown in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. (1) The Plaintiff has a profit structure in which the Plaintiff (a) operates an “Gmarket”, which is a trade space of goods and services on the Internet, called the so-called open market, and (b) a seller and a purchaser member (c) a seller provide support for the transaction of goods and services using the Gmarket system and (d) a seller member receives user fees from the seller member as the price for the use of the Gmarket system.

B. The Plaintiff, as part of marketing protocol in order to revitalize the transaction of goods or services through the Gmarket, implemented the system from around the end of 2003 to around the beginning of 2005, “coophone”, and “coophone” from around the beginning of 2005. The term “coophone” was a method of discounting the sales price of the pertinent goods to all purchase members who intend to purchase specific goods at a certain amount. The term “coophone” was a method of discounting the sales price of the pertinent goods at a certain amount of discount to all or some unspecified purchase members, such as the case where the use result is excellent or new purchase.

C. In the event that a product transaction is conducted through the discount of items or the use of coophones, the Plaintiff deducted the amount equivalent to the discounted value from service charges to be paid by the selling member. Of the service charges, the Plaintiff reported and paid the value-added tax after deducting the deducted amount equivalent to the discounted value or the discounted value of coophones (hereinafter “instant deducted amount”) from the value-added tax base by deeming the deducted amount as the accumulated value under Article 13(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 52(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

D. As a result of a specific audit conducted by the Board of Audit and Inspection from June 16, 2010 to July 6, 2010 of the same year, the Board of Audit and Inspection demanded correction to additionally collect any insufficient value-added tax by excluding the amount of deduction from the tax base by notifying the Defendant of the result of the audit, on the following grounds: “Gmarket’s discount on the sales price of goods to its purchasing members is the same as the actual amount of payment to its purchasing members regardless of whether the benefit belongs to all purchasing members; thus, the substance of the said discount transaction is to pay the sales price on behalf of the selling members, and falls under the cost of sales promotion to be borne by the Gmarket in order to increase its sales.”

E. Accordingly, the Defendant rendered each disposition on the details of the imposition of value-added tax on the grounds as set forth in the preceding paragraph.

F. Accordingly, on October 22, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the imposition of value-added tax Nos. 1 on the separate sheet No. 2, 2011. On May 9, 2011, on the part relating to coophone (the increased due to the revised disposition on February 7, 201) among the dispositions of imposition No. 3 through 11 on the same list No. 3 through 11 on the same date, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the remaining portion of the revised tax base of the Plaintiff’s tax amount (the increased tax by the revised disposition on May 11, 201) and the number No. 11 on the separate sheet No. 3 or No. 11 on the separate sheet No. 3 or No. 201 on April 21, 2011, the Tax Tribunal revoked the Plaintiff’s respective tax base and/or No. 21, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 (including each number), and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(1) The transaction between the Plaintiff, the selling member, and the purchasing member through the Gmarket is based on the transaction contract between the Plaintiff and the purchasing member and the service contract relating to the support and use of the Gmarket system between the Plaintiff and the selling member, and if the sales price is discounted in the transaction contract between the Plaintiff and the purchasing member, the service fee shall also be discounted in the service contract between the Plaintiff and the selling member as the conditions for the supply of the above service are fulfilled.

(2) The terms and conditions of “Gmarket sales services note 5” (hereinafter “the instant terms and conditions”) provide for matters concerning the support and use of the Gmarket system between the Plaintiff and the sales members. In full view of the contents of the said terms and conditions, the Plaintiff and the sales member agreed, at the Plaintiff’s expense, to discount the relevant discounted amount from the sales price of the goods and to deduct the service fee from the said discounted amount, and to reduce the service fee to the said discounted amount. The week 6) GSSM (the disadvantaged party of the GM) program provided by the Plaintiff was able to verify the use of the Lmarket system through discount or the program, and not only the tax invoice on the transaction between the Plaintiff and the sales members, such as sales, and the tax invoice on the support and use of the Gmarket system between the Plaintiff and the sales members, were issued through the service discount amount and the service fee discounted.

(3) Considering such circumstances, the value-added tax base on the service contract for the support and use of the Gmarket system between the Plaintiff and the sales members shall be deemed to be the “free service fee,” which is the monetary payment actually received by the Plaintiff from the sales member pursuant to Article 13(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act. The deductible amount in this case constitutes the “free amount,” which is directly deducted from the agreed service fee according to the fulfillment of the terms of supply, such as the discount of items and the use of the boophone as stipulated in Article 13(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 52(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

(4) The Tax Tribunal decided to exclude only the part of the goods to be purchased from the tax base after the amendment of the terms and conditions of this case on June 1, 2006, among each disposition of the attached Table 1 on the imposition of value-added tax. However, upon examining the terms and conditions applied in the above dispositions before and after June 1, 2006, there is no change in the method of settling accounts for service charges after deducting the amount to be settled from the sales proceeds settled by the Plaintiff to the sales members, but it was merely more concrete in the terms and conditions of June 1, 2006, and where a member of the coo-phone selects the goods to be purchased, the amount of the cua-phone is discounted from the sales amount as in the case of the cua-phone discount. Since the Plaintiff and the sales members agreed to implement marketing through the coo-phone applied through the above dispositions in the taxable period before and after June 1, 2006, it does not have any basis to regard it as prior to 0.6.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form 2 shall be as shown in attached Table 2.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Main terms and conditions of the instant contract

The terms and conditions of this case applied from July 2, 2004 provide that "the consent to the terms and conditions of this case shall have the same effect as the conclusion of the contract between the seller and the Plaintiff through the real-time electronic commerce system (Gmarket) provided by the Plaintiff." The main contents of the disposition of this case are as follows.

㈎ 2006. 6. 1. 개정 전 약관의 주요 내용

Article 2(e) of the Schedule. 3. e. D. D. 3. D. D. D. e. D. e. D. e. D. e. D. e. D. e. D. e. D. e. D. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. s. e. e. e. e. s. e. e. e. e. e. s. e. e. e. e. s. e. e. e. s. e. e. e. e. s. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. s. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e.s. e. e.s.s. e. e.) e.s.s. e.s. e.s. e.....s.s. e. e...............

§ 13 (Settlement of Payments for Goods)

㈏ 2006. 6. 1. 개정 약관의 주요 내용

Section 2(e) of the Schedule. 3. e. D. D. 3. D. D. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. f. e. e. e. e. f. e. e. e. e. f. e. e. e. f. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. f. e. f. e. f. e. f. e. f. e. f. e. f. e. f. e. f. f. e. f. f. e. f. e. f. f. e. f.) f. e. f. e. e.. f. e.......... e.......... e................... e.............. ........................................................ .................. ...................................... .........................................................

5. If the buyer requests a tax invoice (including a statement of accounts) or Cash Receipt, he shall issue to the buyer a tax invoice (including a statement of accounts) or Cash Receipt for the amount concluded through the Gmarket.

6. The Company shall issue a tax invoice for the system usage fee every month to the Gmarket, as in accordance with the content of the sale.

㈐ 2007. 7. 1. 개정 약관의 주요 내용

Article 3 (Effect) 1. The Company may provide for detailed matters not provided for in this Agreement in the Agreement on the Use of Services, and if it notifies and eurs agree to do so through the seller transaction management system (hereinafter referred to as the “GSM”), it shall form part of the terms and conditions, as well as the contract for use of services (hereinafter referred to as the “use contract”). Article 4 (Service Charges) 1. The service charges refer to the amount to be paid by eurler in return for the use of services, and shall be calculated from the first day of each month by the amount calculated by deducting the amount to be settled from the purchasing member (except for the overseas delivery charges settled by the purchasing member) the Company from the purchase member’s price after deducting the amount to be settled. 2. The service charges may be settled through deduction from the sale proceeds, the use of the goods at the time, etc., and shall be able to modify the rate, payment method, etc. of the goods and services at its own expense, and shall be able to complete the sale and delivery of the goods and services at the same time.

㈑ 2009. 5. 11. 개정 약관의 주요 내용

Section 5 (Rejection of Act by Agent) The Company shall assume only its own responsibility for the operation and management of the system for efficient services and shall not act for buyers or sellers in connection with the transaction of goods or services, and the Member shall be directly responsible for the transaction and registered information between its members. Section 12 (Electronic Commerce System Providing Services) The Company shall assist its members to sell goods in various forms through e-commerce systems. 2. The Company may, in order to promote sales of its registered goods, be exposed to the portal sites and domestic and foreign sites operated by its sellers, and if at the time of discount, it shall pay off the registered goods at the discounted price (Sales Services of its Members). The Company shall pay off the sales price of goods and services at the rate of 1.0 billion won after the completion of its registration, and the Company shall pay off its own charges for the sale of goods and services at the rate of 1.0 billion won after the date of its purchase and delivery.

㈒ 2010. 6. 1. 개정 약관의 주요 내용

Section 1 of the table (Article 5, 12, and 20 are the same before the amendment) contained in the main text. 1. Service charges means the amount that members are obliged to pay to the company in return for the use of the services to provide and sell the e-market platform and the e-market platform, and shall be calculated and added up by calculating the basic service charges (standard closing rate) and the mutual-aid fees of the selling members (standard discount of the selling member). (Omission) The company may, if necessary, newly establish or change the service charges, and the new or modified fees may be announced through the service screen provided by the company. (3) The company may discount the basic service charges for the specific goods within the scope of the basic service charges to promote sales, etc. (excluding the case where the selling member discounts the selling price without prior consultation with the company). The service charges for the relevant goods may be calculated by deducting the service charges from the basic amount on the basis of the price of the goods at discount before the settlement of the service charges at the rate of 1.5 months prior to the issuance of the service charges.

(2) Utilization of the GSSM program

Gmarket 11) The sales member could conduct and manage overall matters relating to sales activities by linking the GSSM program with the “sales management” item on the right side of the web page. However, the above program was composed of items such as goods/price, quantity/detaileds, benefits/cuptures, advertisements/cuptures, advertisements/cuptures, delivery/delivery expenses, cancellation/delivery management, sales proceeds, customer inquiries/cuptures, auction/topphones/air/ecupphones, professional shop/other items. Sales proceeds were composed of items such as sales progress, additional expenses/deduction refund details, settlement details, customer tax invoices, receipt of tax invoices, value-added tax return details, etc. The sales member could obtain discount on the sales price and sales price of the Plaintiff’s “sales price and sales price” through the “sales price discount” item, such as sales price discount, discount charges, sales fee, sales fee, and sales price of the Plaintiff’s “sales price and sales price” from the Plaintiff’s respective service member, which can be verified.

(3) the method of applying item discounts and coophones;

㈎ 아이템 할인은 특정 상품에 대하여 일정기간 동안 판매가격을 일정액 할인하는 것으로 이 상품을 구매하려는 모든 구매회원을 대상으로 적용되는 프로모션 방식인데, 이 경우 구매회원이 G마켓 웹사이트에서 구매하려는 상품 정보를 확인하면 할인 혜택에 관한 광고문안과 함께 당초의 ‘판매가’, 아이템 할인에 따른 ‘할인액’, 최종적인 ‘고객할인구매가’가 표시된다.

㈏ 바이어 쿠폰은 일정 범위의 불특정 구매회원에게 일정액의 쿠폰을 발행해 주고 쿠폰을 보유한 구매회원이 적용 대상 상품을 구매할 때 이를 사용하면 쿠폰금액만큼의 할인 혜택을 부여하는 프로모션 방식인데, 이 경우 구매회원이 G마켓 웹사이트에서 구매하려는 상품에 대한 결제과정을 진행하여 쿠폰을 적용하면 당초의 ‘판매가’, 쿠폰 적용에 따른 ‘할인액’, 최종적인 ‘할인적용금액’이 표시된다.

(iv) transaction practices concerning item discounts and coophones;

㈎ G마켓에서 상품에 대한 매매 등 거래가 이루어지면 원고는 판매회원 대신 구매회원으로부터 판매대금을 지급받아 GSM상의 정산 내역을 기준으로 서비스 이용료 등을 차감하는 정산과정을 거친 후 판매회원에게 정산금을 지급하였다.

㈏ 아이템 할인이나 바이어 쿠폰의 발급은 G마켓에서 빈번하게 진행되어 온 프로모션 방식으로, 원고가 이러한 프로모션을 결정·진행할 때에는 판매회원들과 협의를 하거나(주로 소규모의 프로모션) 원고가 자체적으로 결정하여(주로 대규모의 프로모션) 이를 G마켓 웹페이지 및 GSM, 전화, 문자 등을 통해 홍보·공지한 후 실시하였고, 이를 통해서 상품 판매가격의 할인이 이루어지면 그 할인금액만큼 원고가 판매회원으로부터 지급받을 서비스 이용료의 할인이 이루어지기 때문에, 판매회원이 원고로부터 지급받는 정산금에는 차이가 없었다.

㈐ 판매회원들은 대부분 G마켓 회원가입·등록시의 설명, GSM의 공지 등을 통해 아이템 할인이나 바이어 쿠폰 등 프로모션이 빈번히 시행되는 점, 이를 통해 할인되는 판매금액만큼 서비스 이용료에서 공제가 이루어져 결과적으로 판매회원이 지급받는 정산금에는 차이가 없다는 점 등에 대하여 잘 알고 있었고, G마켓을 통한 상품 거래 과정에서 GSM 판매진행내역의 확인을 통해 자신의 상품에 대한 개별 거래에서 아이템 할인이나 바이어 쿠폰의 적용이 이루어졌는지 여부를 언제든지 확인할 수 있었다.

㈑ 판매회원들은 대부분 GSM ‘판매대금-고객세금계산서 발급’ 항목을 통해 구매회원에게 판매회원과 구매회원 사이의 매매 등 거래에 관하여 바이어 쿠폰, 아이템 할인 등의 적용으로 할인된 판매가격을 공급가액으로 한 세금계산서를 발급하고, GSM ‘판매대금-세금계산서 수신’ 항목을 통해 원고로부터 판매회원과 원고 사이의 G마켓 시스템 지원 및 이용 등 거래에 관하여 이 사건 공제액이 차감된 서비스 이용료를 공급가액으로 한 세금계산서를 발급받아 수신하는 방법으로 세금계산서를 수수하여 부가가치세 등 세무 신고를 하였다.

㈒ 이 사건 처분의 과세기간 동안 위와 같은 아이템 할인이나 바이어 쿠폰 등 프로모션의 결정·진행, 아이템 할인이나 바이어 쿠폰의 발급에 따른 서비스 이용료의 차감, 이를 포함한 정산의 내용 및 방법, 세금계산서의 수수 등의 거래 관행에 달라진 내용은 없었다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 14 (including each number), witness non-party 1 and non-party 2's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Article 13(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the amount falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall not be included in the tax base." Article 52(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "The amount of overcharge as provided in Article 13(2)1 of the Act refers to the amount of direct deduction of a certain amount from the ordinary supply value at the time of supply of goods or services in accordance with the terms of quality, quantity, payment of the cost of delivery and supply, and other terms and conditions of supply in the supply of goods or services." In addition, unless there is any provision regarding additional requirements for recognition as over overcharge amount or passive requirements that cannot be considered as overcharge amount, the above provision provides that "in accordance with the terms and conditions of payment for quality, quantity, delivery and supply, and other supply," and Article 52(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the amount of overcharge as provided in Article 13(2)1 of the same Act shall be the amount excluded from the value-added tax base."

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence as seen earlier, the facts acknowledged as well, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant deduction amount is the amount directly deducted from the Plaintiff’s service fee, which is the Plaintiff’s price according to the fulfillment of the terms of service provision, and thus, constitutes a discount amount not included in the tax base as provided in Article 13(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 52(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and thus, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful, since it is unlawful in the instant disposition based on a different premise.

㈎ G마켓을 통한 판매회원, 구매회원, 원고 사이의 거래구조는 판매회원과 구매회원 사이 판매회원이 등록한 상품에 관한 매매 등 거래계약과 원고와 판매회원 사이의 G마켓 시스템 지원 및 이용에 관한 용역계약의 두 가지 법률관계에 따라 형성되어 있는데, 판매회원은 원고에게 자신의 상품 판매를 위탁하거나 기타 판매에 관한 어떠한 사항도 위임하지 않은 채 판매할 상품 및 판매가격, 판매된 상품의 배송 등 상품 판매에 관한 전 과정을 직접 결정·수행하는 독립적인 판매행위를 하였고, 오픈 마켓의 운영자인 원고는 G마켓이라는 온라인 거래공간과 회원간 거래의 신뢰성, 안전성 등을 확보하는 지원 장치를 제공하고 그 대가로 서비스 수수료를 받았을 뿐이므로, 위 두 가지 법률관계는 경제적 이해관계가 중첩되는 최소한의 영역을 제외하면 각 계약 당사자의 의사에 따라 자율적으로 규율되는 것으로 보아야 한다. 따라서 이러한 거래구조의 특수성을 기초로 살펴볼 때 아이템 할인이나 바이어 쿠폰의 사용에 따른 거래의 실질은 판매의 증진을 통한 수익의 증대라는 원고와 판매회원 공통의 이해관계를 연결고리로 하여 아래에서 보듯 판매회원의 동의 아래 아이템 할인이나 바이어 쿠폰 등의 프로모션이 원고에 의해 기획·시행되어 판매회원과 구매회원 사이 매매 등 거래계약에 있어 상품가격의 할인이 이루어지면, 그와 연동되어 같은 금액만큼 원고와 판매회원 사이 G마켓 시스템 지원 및 이용에 관한 용역계약에 있어 서비스 이용료의 할인이 이루어진 것이라고 봄이 주13) 상당하다.

㈏ 이 사건 처분의 과세기간 중 적용된 이 사건 약관의 내용 및 원고와 판매회원 사이의 지속된 거래 관행 등에 비추어 알 수 있는 아래의 점들 및 앞서 살펴본 사정 등에 비추어 보면, 판매회원들은, G마켓의 가입·등록 즉, 이 사건 약관에 대한 동의 및 G마켓 시스템 지원 및 이용에 관한 용역계약의 체결과 GSM의 활용을 통한 거래 등의 과정에서 원고가 아이템 할인이나 바이어 쿠폰 등의 프로모션을 시행할 수 있고, 아이템 할인이나 바이어 쿠폰이 적용되는 구매회원과의 매매 등 거래에서 그 할인금액만큼 자신의 상품 판매가격이 인하되는 것이며, 위 할인금액에 상응하는 이 사건 공제액이 원고에게 지급하여야 할 서비스 이용료에서 차감된다는 데에 명시적 또는 묵시적으로 동의하여, 원고와 판매회원 사이에 이 사건 공제액의 발생 근거, 적용 사유, 공제 금액 등 용역 제공의 조건에 관한 사전적 합의가 있었던 것으로 봄이 상당하고, 이는 2006. 6. 1. 약관의 개정 여부와 관계없이 이 사건 처분의 과세기간 전부에 있어 동일하다.

1) The terms and conditions prior to the amendment on June 1, 2006 already included provisions such as the standard price for settlement or supply cost, delivery cost, service fee, etc.: (Article 3 subparag. 1); (i) the Plaintiff may change or separately determine the system usage fee according to the circumstances or through consultation with the sales member (Article 3 subparag. 2 and subparag. 3); (ii) the Plaintiff may independently conduct online marketing reproduction in relation to the sales of the goods of the sales member; and (iii) the costs are borne by the Plaintiff unless the sales member fully or partially imposes upon the sales member (Article 3 subparag. 5); and (iv) the settlement of the goods price is paid based on the data for settlement of GSSM (Article 13 subparag. 1). Such provisions were continuously included in the terms and conditions applied.

2) The terms and conditions amended on June 1, 2006, in addition to all the provisions of the preceding paragraph, were added to the latter part of Article 3 subparag. 3 of the Terms and Conditions of this case that the service user fee was calculated by deducting the amount the Plaintiff would have settled from the settlement amount of the purchasing member, and the tax invoice was issued. This is merely limited to the definition of service user fee according to the existing formula for calculating the selling price, service user fee, settlement amount, etc., and it is consistent with the calculation process of the existing GSS data, and there was no actual change in the transaction of issuing and receiving the tax invoice with the service user fee subtracting the amount of the instant deduction as the supply price. Thus, it is difficult to view that the method of calculating service user fee or the amount of the service user fee, etc. was changed in the case of the application of the discount or boophonephone based on the added portion of the above revised Terms

3) According to the terms and conditions amended after June 1, 2006, the amended terms and conditions added a separate provision on the meaning of service fees and methods of calculating them (Article 4), the validity of the terms and conditions to be incorporated into a part of the sales service contract (Article 3) and the provisions on the company’s exemption (Article 14) that is not responsible for the transaction between the sales member and the purchasing member because they merely provide the service transaction system (Article 3) and the Plaintiff is not involved in the transaction between the sales member and the purchasing member. After the amendment on May 11, 2009, the terms and conditions added a separate provision on the meaning of service fees and the validity of the terms and conditions to be incorporated into a part of the sales service contract (Article 14) to the effect that the Plaintiff only bears the responsibility for the operation and management of the Gmarket system and does not act on behalf of the sales member or the purchasing member in connection with the transaction of the goods (Article 5). Such amendment was amended and supplemented.

4) The sales member agreed to the terms and conditions of this case as seen earlier at the time of opening and registering the members of the Gmarket, thereby incorporating them into the contents of the service agreement on the support and use of the Gmarket service, and the Plaintiff can autonomously proceed with the display of item discounts or coophones, etc., and the costs incurred by the Plaintiff, in consultation with the sales member, unless otherwise specified for the portion to be borne by the sales member. If the sales price originally determined is discounted by the application of the protocol, it can be sufficiently known that the Plaintiff bears the above protocol costs in a manner that is linked and discounted with the service fee, and there was no difference between the discounted amount of the service fee and the discounted amount of the sales price by the protocol, and thus, there was no objection against the discount of the sales price through the protocol of continuous transaction. It appears that the amount of the service fee was in fact confirmed by confirming the details of sales through GSSM, the sales price after discount and the service fee received and confirmed such transaction practices through the issuance of the tax invoice.

㈐ 한편 부가가치세법 기본통칙 6-16-3에 의하면, 부가가치세 과세표준에서 공제되지 아니하는 판매장려금에 대하여 ‘사업자가 판매촉진을 위하여 거래상대자의 판매실적에 따라 일정률의 장려금품을 지급 또는 공급하는 경우’라고 규정하고 있는데, 판매장려금 지급도 에누리액처럼 사실상 공급가액을 낮추는 효과가 있고, 에누리액의 지급도 매출 증대를 목적으로 하는 경우가 대부분이기 때문에, 이 사건 공제액을 판매장려금으로 볼 수 있는 여지가 없지는 않으나, 앞서 본 바와 같이 ① 원고는 오픈 마켓의 운영자로서 G마켓 시스템의 운영 및 관리에 관한 책임만을 부담할 뿐이므로 자신의 책임과 계산 아래 독자적으로 판매회원이 게시한 상품에 관하여 할인판매를 실시할 아무런 권한이 없었던 점, ② 이 사건 공제액은 판매회원의 서비스 이용료 납부실적을 기준으로 직접 판매회원에게 제공된 것이 아니라, 원고가 판매회원의 동의 아래 시행한 프로모션에 따라 판매회원과 구매회원 사이의 거래에 있어 개별 상품의 판매가격이 할인됨으로써 그와 연동되어 간접적으로 해당 판매회원에 대한 서비스 이용료가 같은 금액만큼 할인된 것에 불과한 점, ③ 원고와 판매회원 사이에는 이 사건 공제액의 발생 근거, 적용 사유, 공제 금액 등 용역 제공의 조건에 관한 사전적 합의가 있었다고 할 것인 점 등에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 공제액은 부가가치세 과세표준에 포함되는 판매장려금과는 성격을 달리하고, 용역 제공의 조건에 따라 정하여져 원고의 위 용역 제공 대가인 서비스 이용료에서 직접 공제되는 금원으로서 관계법령에서 정한 에누리액에 해당한다고 봄이 상당하다.

㈑ 또한 조세심판원은 바이어 쿠폰의 경우 판매 전 할인된 판매가격이 G마켓 시스템에 공시되지 않았고, 원고가 판매회원의 동의 없이 자기의 책임과 계산으로 불특정한 일부 구매회원을 대상으로 제공한 것이라는 등의 이유로 아이템 할인과는 달리 판매장려금에 해당한다고 보았고, 피고도 그러한 취지의 주장을 하나, ① G마켓의 거래 구조에 비추어 G마켓에 게시된 상품에 대한 판매가격은 판매회원과 구매회원 사이에서 결정되는 것이고, 양자 사이의 매매 등 거래계약은 판매회원이 최초 판매가를 시스템을 통해 게시한 후, 이에 대한 할인 혜택의 제공 등 금액 조율 과정을 거쳐, 최종적으로 구매회원이 할인된 판매가격을 결제함으로써 체결되는 것인바, 아이템 할인이나 바이어 쿠폰의 경우 모두 결제 전의 가격 조율 단계에서 할인이 적용됨은 동일하고, 판매회원과 구매회원 사이에서 할인된 판매대금이 G마켓 시스템상 ‘고객할인구매가’ 또는 ‘할인적용금액’으로 표시되어 이를 기초로 최종적으로 계약의 체결 여부가 결정됨도 동일한 점, ② 아이템 할인이나 바이어 쿠폰의 경우 모두 그에 따라 직접적으로 상품의 판매대금의 할인 효과가 발생하고, 그와 연동되어 간접적으로 이 사건 공제액에 해당하는 서비스 이용료의 할인 효과가 발생하는 것인 점, ③ 바이어 쿠폰에 관하여도 G마켓 시스템의 운영 및 관리에 관한 책임만을 부담하는 원고가 자신의 책임과 계산 아래 구매회원에게 이를 제공함으로써 판매회원이 게시한 상품에 관하여 독자적으로 할인판매를 실시할 아무런 권한이 없었음은 앞서 본 바와 같은 점, ④ 그 밖에 바이어 쿠폰에 관하여도 아이템 할인과 마찬가지로 G마켓의 가입·등록시 이 사건 약관에 대한 동의 및 G마켓 시스템 지원 및 이용에 관한 용역계약의 체결과 GSM의 활용을 통한 거래 등의 주14) 과정 에서 이 사건 공제액과 관련된 용역 제공의 조건에 관한 사전적 합의가 있었음은 앞서 본 바와 같은 점 등에 비추어 보면, 아이템 할인의 경우와 달리 바이어 쿠폰에 관한 이 사건 공제액만을 판매장려금으로 볼 근거는 없다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and all of them are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission of Imposition, etc. of Additional Tax]

Judges Cho Jong-ho et al. (Presiding Judge)

1) Before the change on August 31, 201, the trade name prior to the change is “e-market” of a stock company.

2) The term “Gmarket sales services terms and conditions” prior to the amendment on May 11, 2009 refers to a person who sells his or her goods or services by joining or registering the Gmarket. It refers to approximately approximately KRW 620,000 sales members currently subscribed.

Note 3) means a person who purchases goods or services through Gmarket. The currently purchased members are approximately KRW 18.7 million.

Note 4) Up to approximately 6-12% of the selling price for each product and up to approximately 7% on an average.

5) The name of the amended terms and conditions applied from July 1, 2007 is “Gmarket sales member terms and conditions”.

6) At present, the name of the ESSM has been changed to the weak in the ESS, and the composition and contents of the program are the same.

Note 7) On July 1, 2007, the terms and conditions were stipulated in the letter before the amendment, and were effective in Article 3 after the said amendment.

8) On August 19, 2005, the amendment to the terms and conditions was changed to Article 14 and Article 15 at the time of the amendment on April 17, 2006, but the contents are identical.

9) On July 13, 2006, the amendment to the terms and conditions was changed to subparagraph 7 of the same Article, but the content is identical.

Note 10) On July 13, 2006, the amendment to the terms and conditions was changed to subparagraph 8 of the same Article, but the contents are the same.

Note 11) www.gmet.co.kr

12) At present, the name of ESM is changed to the weak in ES days, and the composition and contents of the program are the same.

13) The Defendant asserts that the transactional relationship arising from the discount or the use of coophones, on behalf of the purchasing member, the Plaintiff paid part of the sales price equivalent to the discounted amount on behalf of the purchasing member, namely, the Plaintiff partially taken over the obligation to pay goods to the purchasing member under the transaction contract, such as the sale and purchase between the selling member and the purchasing member, and then set off the service user fee claim against the selling member under the service contract on the support and use of the Gmarket system established with the selling member as an automatic claim, and the above goods user fee claim against the Plaintiff of the selling member as an passive claim. However, this is difficult to accept on the ground that this is a legal fiction or logic inconsistent with the structure and substance of the transaction as seen in this paragraph.

Note 14) Even as to the instant terms and conditions (Article 3 subparag. 5 of the Standard Terms and Conditions before the amendment, June 1, 2006), coophones and item discounts are merely the exchange of the “online marketing propagation” that the Plaintiff may carry out on its own, but did not have any different nature, and the GSSM program did not treat both differently.