Crocom Co., Ltd. (Law Firm New Village, Attorney Song-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

October 30, 2013

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap20854 decided April 12, 2013

1. All appeals filed by the Defendant are dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on February 1, 201, of KRW 20,50,390 for the first term of 2006, KRW 9,618,770 for the second term of 2006, KRW 13,130,890 for the second term of 207, KRW 20,526,850 for the second term of 2007, KRW 8,421,590 for the first term of 2008, and KRW 1,686,250 for the second term of 208.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the claims filed by the plaintiff are dismissed.

The reasoning of this court's judgment is the same as that of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Defendant asserts that the sales revenue at discount does not amount to the discount amount stipulated in the Value-Added Tax Act even in this court. However, in full view of the circumstances in the first instance court and the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s request or cream agreement entered into with the Home shopping, which provides that the Plaintiff may change the sales price by means of discount coupons, temporary payment discount, etc. (Evidence A-8); (b) if a purchaser requests the issuance of a tax invoice, the Plaintiff shall be the supplier; (c) if the purchaser of the goods issues a tax invoice, the Plaintiff shall be the supplier; (d) the purchaser of the goods shall be the supplier of the goods; (e) recognizing the actual amount paid as the supply price, except for the discounted amount, from the purchaser of the goods who purchased the goods using discount coupons, is naturally consistent with the trading system; and (c) the disposition of this case is value-added tax on the transaction by the supplier and the purchaser of the goods as the supplier, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion.

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. All appeals filed by the defendant are dismissed.

Judges Choi Jong-ho (Presiding Judge) Kim Tae-ho