Suwon District Court-2015-Guhap-69615 ( December 21, 2016)

Review Division 2015-0046 (No. 21, 2015)

The Plaintiff’s penalty, which was received from users who violated the contract, does not constitute a taxable object of value-added tax.

The amount of this case is not the price for the supply of goods or services provided to the users, but the amount that the Plaintiff received from the users who violated the contract, and it is reasonable to view that it does not fall under the object

Article 29 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2017Nu32915 Revocation of Disposition Rejecting Value-Added Tax Correction

AAA, Inc.

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Guhap69615 Decided December 21, 2016

June 22, 2017

August 17, 2017

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

All disposition rejecting correction of each value-added tax in attached Form 1 that the defendant issued against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except for the dismissal or addition of a part of the following, and thus, it refers to the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

Parts to be removed or added.

○ The first instance court's 11th judgment "the discount charge" is regarded as "the discount charge".

○ The following shall be added to the 15th judgment of the first instance court.

⑺ 원고가 이용자에게 제공하는 통신서비스 용역 공급의 대가는 이용자가 원고에게 당초의 할인된 요금제 약정에 따라 다달이 요금을 납부함으로써 이미 지급되었고, 약정기간이 만료되기 전에 이용자가 서비스이용약정을 해지함으로써 이미 할인받은 금액 중의 일부를 원고에게 지급한다고 하더라도 이는 이용자의 위약으로 인한 우연한 결과이므로 이를 용역의 공급대가라고 할 수 없다.

In this case, as provided in Article 29 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, the defendant takes place a tax base return for value-added tax on the relevant portion of the cost paid monthly as consideration for supply, as long as the time of supply is deemed to be "when each portion of the cost is to be paid" as provided in Article 29 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act. The plaintiff argues that it is erroneous to develop the logic to the effect that "the value of the service becomes definite every month when the supply of the service is completed" under Article 29 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act with respect to this case. Article 16 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the time when the service is supplied shall be any of the following," and Article 16 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the time when the service is supplied to the user according to the following provisions of Article 16 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act shall not be determined by the time of supply of the service."

⑻ 피고는 원고가 이용자와 사이에 당초 약정한 기간이 만료되기 이전에 계약을 해지하는 경우에 원고가 이용자로부터 추가로 금원을 지급받기로 한 약정은 기간 약정의 공급조건이 지켜지지 않을 경우 에누리로 받은 금액 상당의 이 사건 금액만큼을 회복시키기로 하는 '조건부 추가요금'에 대한 합의에 해당하고, 이 사건 금액의 지급 여부는 이미 이용자에게 재화, 용역의 공급이 전제되어 있어 이용자의 중도해지 여부에 따라 그 대가를 얼마로 측정할 것인가의 문제에 불과하며, 이러한 대가결정은 당사자 간에 사전합의에 의하여 확정되어 있는 것이므로 이 사건 금액은 원고가 제공하는 용역과 직접적 관련성이 있다는 취지로 주장한다.

However, it is natural to view that the amount of sanctions imposed on the user by the service provider due to the fulfillment of the condition that it is a violation of the terms of the user's contract constitutes a penalty in its nature, and to agree to pay a certain amount of penalties when the user terminates the service use contract in the middle of the contract in violation of the terms of the contract, even if the amount of such penalty is set in advance to the extent that it does not exceed the amount of the initial discount, it constitutes

In addition, as seen earlier, the value of supply of the service was already paid by the Plaintiff by paying multiple rates under the original discount rate system for the service provider and the service user. Since then, if the user’s termination of the service use contract prior to the expiration of the agreed period, it would make it difficult to specify whether it is the cost of the service supplied at a certain time. This suggests that there is no direct quid pro quo relationship between the amount paid by the user and the supply of the service due to the breach of the agreed period.

Furthermore, since a service use contract is based on the premise of the supply of a service and the payment of the cost therefor, it is reasonable for a service supplier to supply a service to a user. In this case, it is reasonable to set in advance the penalty for breach of an agreement by a user as liquidated damages. In this case, it cannot be said that it is based on the initial discount amount in calculating the estimated amount of damages.

⑼ 피고는 부가가치세법 제32조 제7항, 부가가치세법 시행령 제70조 제1항 제3호에서 정하는 수정세금계산서 발급제도는 그 공급가액의 증감액을 수정세금계산서 교부일이 속하는 과세기간의 과세표준에 반영하도록 하는데 그 취지가 있는바, 이와 같은 수정세금계산서 발급제도에 따라 이 사건에서 통신이용자가 약정기간을 준수하지 않고 서비스이용계약을 중도해지 하는 경우 그 해지 시점이 추가요금에 대한 공급시기로 인정되고 그 추가요금이 공급대가로서 해당 시기의 매출세액 과세표준에 가산되어야 한다는 취지로 주장한다.

However, Article 32(7) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "if an amount added or deducted from the value of supply arises as a result of the termination, etc. of a contract under subparagraph 3, the amount to be added shall be written on the date of the increase or decrease, and the amount to be deducted shall be written in black or red, and the amount to be deducted shall be issued by marking the revised tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as "amended tax invoice") or the corrected electronic tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as "amended electronic tax invoice"), as prescribed by Presidential Decree, if any of the grounds prescribed by Presidential Decree arises in connection with the stated matters." Article 70(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "The revised tax invoice or corrected electronic tax invoice under Article 32(7) of the Act may be issued in accordance with the following reasons and procedures." Article 32(3) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "if the revised tax invoice or revised tax invoice is issued in accordance with the above provisions, the amount to be issued can not be seen as the grounds for the violation of the penalty."

⑽ 피고는 만약 이 사건 금액을 용역공급의 대가가 아니라고 본다면 이는 원고가 위약금이라는 명칭을 사용한 것에 따른 것으로서, 할인반환금이라는 명칭을 사용하는 경우에는 용역공급의 대가로 인정되는 반면 위약금이라는 명칭을 사용하는 경우에는 용역공급의 대가가 부정되는 것은 부당하다는 취지로 주장한다.

However, as seen earlier, the court did not decide that the amount of this case is not the price for the supply of service solely on the ground that the Plaintiff used the name of penalty, as seen earlier, but rather, the purport of this case is that the Plaintiff’s payment is the amount of penalty as a result of the user’s violation of the contract period, separate from the price for the supply of service at a discount from the price for the supply of service that the Plaintiff received in advance pursuant to the agreement at a discount from the

⑾ 또한 피고는 이 사건 금액을 위약금으로서 용역공급의 대가가 아니라고 판단하게 되면, 납세자가 이면계약을 체결하여 실제 이용기간을 1년으로 하면서 일응 2년의 약정을 체결한 것처럼 약정할인을 적용시킨 다음, 1년 후 중도해지 하는 형식으로 부당한 거래를 하는 경우도 가능해지므로 부당하다는 취지로 주장한다.

However, there is no reason for a user to conclude a side agreement as claimed by the Defendant for the benefit of the Plaintiff, such as the Plaintiff, and there is no doubt as to whether the above manipulation can be possible in the current situation where most users make automatic transfer of the user fee through the account or account transfer individually, and it is also difficult to view that the Plaintiff is possible to conclude such side agreement with the multiple users. Furthermore, if there is room for abuse of the tax law provisions by abusing the tax law provisions, it should be resolved by supplementing the law, etc., and there is no ground to interpret the interpretation of the law to the extent that there is no room for abuse

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.