Whether the officially announced automobile parts price for automobile maintenance services is included in the value-added tax base.

Motor Vehicle Maintenance Services and publicly announced automobile insurance benefits and credit card sales shall not be excluded from the value-added tax base.

Article 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 429 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 5 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, since the plaintiff did not state the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal and did not submit the appellate brief within the statutory period (the appellate brief submitted by the plaintiff was received on June 8, 2007,

[Miningju High Court 2006Nu1349 (Law No. 05, 2007)]

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of 7,501,830 won for the second term of 200 for the plaintiff on July 1, 2003, value-added tax of 4,754,360 won for the first term of 201, and value-added tax of 3,602,360 won for the second term of 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

As a result of comparison between the Plaintiff’s automobile insurance money, benefit receipt data, credit card sales and the reported amount of value-added sales, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff omitted sales of KRW 48,587,00 for the second period of 200, KRW 32,721,00 for the first period of 200, KRW 27,795,00 for the second period of 201, KRW 109,103,00 for the second period of 201, and issued a notice of the decision on July 1, 200 on KRW 7.501,830 for the second period of 200, KRW 4,754,360 for the second period of 201, KRW 3,602, KRW 360 for the second period of 201, KRW 15,558,50 for the second period of 200 for the second period of 200 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 7-1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2-1 to 3, respectively, and Eul evidence 3-1 to 5

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) In the case of an automobile maintenance business which requires automobile parts, the Plaintiff is an automobile maintenance business entity that provides only the automobile maintenance services and completed the maintenance after being supplied with automobile parts by the ○○○○○, a part provision business entity, and immediately receiving the automobile parts and repair cost from the customer or the insurance company, and immediately paid the automobile parts to the above ○○○○, and the Plaintiff and ○○○, which reported to be sold, and thus, the Plaintiff and ○○, respectively, supplied the automobile maintenance services and parts, and thus, the automobile maintenance cost constitutes only the Plaintiff’s sales, and the automobile parts cost constitutes the sales by the above ○○○. However, the Defendant’s finding the automobile parts as the Plaintiff’s sales

(2) The Plaintiff’s omission in filing a return was not the Plaintiff’s sales but the Plaintiff’s sales was deemed to be the Plaintiff’s sales for business convenience. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s return of value-added tax that is excluded from the sales accords with the principle of substantial taxation as stipulated in Article

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 1-2-3, 3-1, and 4 evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, four shareholders, including Park○ and Kim○, established the plaintiff company on March 1, 1997, engaged in automobile parts supply business incidental to the automobile maintenance business while opening the automobile maintenance business. On July 1, 1997, Kim○ opened the automobile parts retail business with the trade name called "○○ Treatment Parts" independently from the plaintiff company, and thereafter supplied the automobile parts to the plaintiff. ② The plaintiff and Kim○○ issued a tax invoice with respect to the supply of the parts to the plaintiff by July 1, 200, but the plaintiff did not supply the parts to the plaintiff at least 1,000 won after receiving the tax invoice from the customers to December 201, 200.

On the other hand, a supplier of goods or services under the Value-Added Tax Act and a price settlement method shall follow objective forms of transaction contract and payment method. If a plaintiff, who is a long-term maintenance business entity, has received repair costs and part payments from his customer in lump sum after having received a request for automobile maintenance from his customer, the repair cost and part payments that the plaintiff received from his customer shall be the value-added tax base pursuant to Article 13(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, as the proceeds from the supply of the services and goods provided to his customer. Further, even if the plaintiff received the repair cost and part payments from his customer or insurance company in lump sum, and immediately paid the part payments to the above Kim○, this should be deemed to have been paid for the parts supplied by the plaintiff from his customer or insurance company pursuant to the part supply contract between the above Kim○, and it does not change the remainder into the legal relation of the part directly paid to the above Kim○ in return for the remaining part payment.

Therefore, it is legitimate that the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate, deeming that the above 109,103,000 won, which the plaintiff failed to report, was included in the value of supply of the plaintiff, as the value of supply of the plaintiff.

(2) The principle of substantial taxation under Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes refers to the principle of tax law applied to a person to whom the subject of taxation belongs, if there is another person to whom the subject of taxation belongs. As such, the Plaintiff’s omitted income is based on a car maintenance contract with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, which actually belongs to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant’s instant disposition cannot be deemed as going against

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is with this conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff.