Seoul High Court 2007Nu16594 ( November 22, 2007)

Whether an automatic cash payment service is included in a cash payment agency service subject to tax exemption;

In installing and managing an automatic cash payment machine, the bank is merely providing the bank with cash withdrawal, account transfer, and balance inquiry service provided to its original customer, and it is merely receiving fees from the bank in return, and it cannot be deemed as falling under the same or similar service as the "collection and payment agency service" subject to value-added tax exemption.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

44 44 44 44 44 45 44 444 64 44

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

쇠鹬 쇠鹬 3000 쇠鹬 3000

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

Article 12 (1) 10 of the Value-Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that "financial and insurance services are subject to value-added tax exemption, which are prescribed by Presidential Decree", and Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "financial and insurance services under the Banking Act" shall be included in "financial and insurance services under Article 12 (1) 10 of the Act, and Article 12 (4) 1 proviso (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18175 of Dec. 30, 2003)" shall be included in "financial and insurance services under paragraph (1)."

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the service of this case does not constitute the service identical or similar to the "collection and payment agency service" subject to value-added tax exemption under the above provision, on the ground that the Plaintiff, whose main business is to develop, manufacture, and sell the financial automation device, installs and manage the cash automatic machine, provides the bank with the cash withdrawal and account transfer and the balance inquiry service provided to its original customer and received fees from the bank in return.

In light of the relevant provisions and records of the Value-Added Tax Act, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to "receiving and paying agency services" subject to value-added tax exemption as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, and the court below's primary judgment that the service of this case cannot be deemed as identical or similar to "receiving and paying agency services" subject to value-added tax exemption does not affect the conclusion of this case, and there is no need to make a separate decision as to whether to appeal this part.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.