Seoul High Court-2014-Nu-74567

Seocho 2014 Schedules714, 2014west 715

When the casino company enters into a contract with the transfer of the casino company to the customer recruitment, it is not a joint business, but a service is provided, and the rolling fee out of the money can not be considered as a consideration for

When the casino company entered into a contract with the transfer of the casino company to the customer recruitment, it is not a joint business, but a service is provided, and the rolling commission out of the paid amount is not a consideration for the service. In the instant land transaction, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as an act of unfairly evading or reducing the tax burden.

Revocation of Disposition Imposing Corporate Tax

AAAAA

O Head of the tax office other than 1

August 20, 2015

February 18, 2016

All appeals are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the costs of appeal between the Plaintiff and Defendant ○○ Tax Office shall be borne by each party.

The director of the tax office shall bear the part arising between the director of the tax office.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the lower court citing ① ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in Seoul ○○○○.

A plaintiff who operates a casino exclusively for foreigners (hereinafter referred to as "the casino of this case") in a hotel;

On January 25, 2008, the Philippines, a corporation specializing in soliciting overseas customers, ○○○ Association (hereinafter referred to as “OO”) (hereinafter referred to as “OO”)

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s allegation that ○○○○○ Contract was signed with the name of “○○○○○○○ Contract” and that 60% of the remaining amount of money excluding rolling fees from customers who induced ○○○, etc. was paid to ○○○○○, etc. ② The Plaintiff paid 3,392,274,720 won in total to ○○○, etc. from 2008 to 2010 (hereinafter “this case’s amount”), ③ Defendant ○○○○○ was not liable to pay the value-added tax for services provided by a foreign corporation without a domestic place of business. The court below determined that the contract was subject to value-added tax on behalf of ○○○○○ Contract, etc., and that there was no error in the law regarding the provision of this case’s sales of services on behalf of ○○○ Contract.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant ○○ Tax Office

After compiling the adopted evidence, the lower court determined that: (a) the so-called rolling commission, which is paid to customers who enter a casino to attract rolling game, is determined by the amount equivalent to 1.2% or 1.6% of the total amount of money offered for gambling in substitution, regardless of the success of the game; (b) the instant contract provides that rolling commission shall be treated as the cost for sales; and (c) the Plaintiff’s payment of rolling commission to ○○, etc. to the customer who is not a casino customer, was an error that is not registered in the Republic of Korea in the case of customers who attracted ○○, etc.; and (d) the instant rolling commission was merely paid by the Plaintiff through ○○○, etc., and thus, it cannot be included in the value-added tax base on the ground that the Plaintiff paid the money that the Plaintiff would ultimately pay to the customer through the instant contract.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles

3. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant ○○ Tax Office

citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged the following facts: ① the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from ○○○○○○○○○, a special-related corporation on December 29, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○○○○○○○, a special-related corporation”) for KRW 32 billion in total of KRW 152,969 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”); ② the purchase of the instant land from ○○○○○○○○, a person with a special-related relationship on December 30, 201, by deeming that the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant land from ○○○○○○○○○○, a ○○○○○○○, a total of KRW 152 and four parcels, and KRW 32,969 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”); ② the acquisition of the instant land from ○○○○, a person with a special relationship on KRW 10423,509, etc. of corporate tax (hereinafter the same) and corporate tax.).

Then, the lower court determined that: (a) (i) the Plaintiff’s objective business in the Plaintiff’s registry includes “housing construction business and real estate development business”; (b) the Plaintiff actually purchased the instant land at the time of purchasing the instant land; and (c) based on this, it was difficult to implement a detailed plan for the development of the instant land on April 14, 2010; (ii) the Plaintiff thereafter filed an application for approval of the housing construction project plan under the Housing Act with respect to the instant land of ○○○○ District, including the instant land, with the Plaintiff’s land on August 9, 2010, the Plaintiff did not object to the said approval; (c) the Plaintiff was sentenced to a ruling accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on September 1, 201; (b) the Plaintiff’s price at the time of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant land was 32 billion won at the time of the acquisition of the instant land; and (c) the Plaintiff’s price at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land did not constitute an illegal acquisition price of the instant land.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is a violation of law.

Unlike the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the denial of wrongful calculation.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff and Defendant ○○○ Tax Office.

The part shall be borne by each party, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.