Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap27400 ( November 18, 2010)

Seocho 2010west0634 (2010.04.06)

The Plaintiff uses most of the reduced value-added tax for regular taxi transport business operators for improving their treatment and improvement in the welfare.

The plaintiff used most of the amount of value-added tax to improve the treatment and welfare of taxi drivers by paying it in cash or by reflecting it into wages to the taxi drivers under his jurisdiction, and thus, each of the dispositions of this case that the plaintiff reported otherwise is unlawful.

Article 106-7 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2010Nu4329 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

XX taxi Co., Ltd.

Head of Geumcheon Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap27400 decided November 18, 2010

November 23, 2011

December 28, 2011

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 on August 3, 2009; KRW 000 on the 2008; KRW 000 on the 2008; KRW 000 on the 1st of September 22, 2009; exceeding KRW 000 on the 1st of September 22, 2008; exceeding KRW 000 on the 1st of December 1, 2009; and each disposition of imposition of KRW 00 on the 2000 on the 1st of December 1, 2008.

B. All remaining claims filed by the Plaintiff are dismissed.

2. 10% of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 for the first period of value-added tax of August 3, 2009, KRW 000 for the second period of value-added tax of 2008, KRW 1 value-added tax of 2008 for the second period of value-added tax of 2009, KRW 000 for the first period of value-added tax of 2008 on September 22, 2009, KRW 000 for the first period of value-added tax of 2008 on December 1, 2009, and KRW 00 for the second period of value-added tax of 200 for the second period of value-added tax of 208 for the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff partially reduced the purport of the claim in the appellate court, and it appears that the “

2. Purport of appeal

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s return and payment of value-added tax

In accordance with Article 106-7(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9272, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same), the Plaintiff reported and paid value-added tax by reducing value-added tax for the pertinent taxable period, as indicated in the item column for the amount of value-added tax reduced on the following table, as a company that runs a general taxi transport business under the Passenger Transport Service Act in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan City under Article XX92-20, and for the second scheduled amount of value-added tax in 2008.

(b) Fact-finding surveys on the use of value-added tax reduced;

(1) The head of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government inspected the actual use of the Plaintiff’s scheduled and finalized portion for the first period of 2008, and the estimated amount of value-added tax reduced for the second period of 2008 as follows:

(2) The Minister of Construction and Transportation (former Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs) prohibited the Plaintiff from using the tax reduction amount of value-added tax for the improvement of management, such as call operation expenses, in accordance with the guidelines for using the tax reduction amount of value-added tax (hereinafter “instant guidelines”) prepared on April 2005 pursuant to Article 106-7(2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, but the head of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government reported that the Plaintiff used 00 won out of the tax reduction amount of value-added tax for the first period of time of 2008 + 00 won for the first period of time of 2008 + 200 won for the first time after paying the tax reduction amount of value-added tax to transport employees in cash (2) from January 208 to August 8, 2008 (00 won for the first month of x 143) and did not use it for the improvement of management for the first period of 100 won for the first year of 2008.

(c) Imposition of value-added tax;

Pursuant to Article 106-7 (3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff the value-added tax of 000 won for the first period of August 3, 2008, the value-added tax for the second period of 2008, the value-added tax for the second period of 2008, the value-added tax for the first period of 2008, the value-added tax for the first period of 2000 on September 22, 2009, and the value-added tax for the first period of 2000 on December 11, 2009, and the second period of 2000, the value-added tax for the second period of 2008 (value-added tax for correction) for the second period of 200 on July 1, 201, which was the first judgment of the court of first instance, respectively. (hereinafter referred to as “the remainder of the first disposition of reduction or exemption”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 21, Eul evidence 1, 2, 13 (including each number,

n. Each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff paid the amount of value-added tax reductions in 2008 to taxi drivers under its jurisdiction in cash or reflected in wages, thereby using them for the improvement of treatment and welfare of taxi drivers. Each of the dispositions of this case otherwise reported is unlawful.

(2) Defendant’s assertion

Nab call service fees are expenses disbursed for the improvement of business management, and thus, they cannot be covered by the amount of value-added tax reduced, notwithstanding the fact that the Plaintiff paid the amount of value-added tax reduced in 2008 to taxi drivers, and collected part of the amount under the name of Nab call usage fees. Since the amount equivalent to the amount collected again is not used for improving the treatment and welfare of taxi drivers, each disposition of this case

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Since 2005, the Plaintiff was using OO dives services, and the call function services were added since 2008.

(ii)brate services are services that provide drivers with comprehensive information related to commercial transport vehicles, such as road guidance services, real-time traffic information, safety driving helpers, emergency services, leisure and lifts, credit card settlement/vehicle tracking services, call taxi services, etc., by adding some functions in existing OOD services and expanding services.

(3) From 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) collected KRW 10,000 per month from taxi drivers under the labor and company agreement (at that time, more than a majority of the transport employees agreed to the agreement) while using OOD services; and (b) agreed on August 29, 2008 by the labor and company representatives with the following content. (b) The Plaintiff did not consent to more than a majority of the transport employees.

- The Government agrees to pay the cash payments of value-added tax in 2008 until January - August, 9.11 and to pay each month for the period of reduction or exemption of value-added tax by December, 198.

- - It agrees to pay 13,000 won per month, including 3,000 won per annum, which has already been used from January 8, 2008 to 13,000 won, taking into account Nabol operating fees, companies' difficult management conditions and workers' positions, taking into account the previous 207 management circumstances and workers' positions.

(4) The Plaintiff paid part of the value-added tax reduction amount for the year 2008 to taxi drivers by reflecting it as stated in the wage class column as stated in the above 1.B. Paragraph (b) of the above 1.08. According to the agreement of August 29, 2008, part of the remainder was paid in cash as stated in the separate payment column for drivers of the above Table on September 2008. The Plaintiff used 00 won out of the amount of value-added tax reduction for the first quarter of the year 2008.

(5) In 2008, the Plaintiff paid a fee for the Nab call service to be paid by taxi drivers as soon as the agreement was delayed, and upon the agreement of August 29, 2008, the Plaintiff collected part of the amount of value-added tax reduced from the Nab call service charges that the Plaintiff paid from the Nab call service charges that the Plaintiff paid to taxi drivers in cash, and there are transport employees who did not pay the fee.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's evidence Nos. 5, 7, 10, 11, 13 through 20, 22, 23, Eul's evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Article 106-7 (2) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning Taxation provides that "the amount of value-added tax reduced shall be used for the improvement of the treatment and welfare of general taxi drivers as prescribed by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the instant guidelines provide that "the amount of value-added tax reduced shall not be used for the improvement of management, such as the cost of operating call.

(2) In the event of using Nab call services, it would be helpful for improving the treatment of taxi drivers by reducing the penalty due to traffic offense and increasing the actual revenue of taxi drivers. However, this is directly connected to the Plaintiff’s profit creation. As such, the instant guidelines prohibit the Plaintiff from using the amount of value-added tax reduced for the purpose of the above purpose by regarding the expenses incurred in improving user’s management. Furthermore, the Plaintiff appears to have not obtained the consent of more than a majority of transport employees regarding the use of the amount of value-added tax reduced as Nab call services usage fees. Therefore, if the Plaintiff used the amount of value-added tax reduced in 208 as Nab call service usage fees, it cannot be deemed that it

(3) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff is recognized that the amount of value-added tax reduced in the year 2008 was paid to transport employees by means of reflecting it in wages or cash payment, and that 143 of the Plaintiff’s transport employees paid the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 143 among the Plaintiff’s transport employees. In addition, if we look at the following circumstances revealed by facts and evidence as seen earlier, it cannot be readily concluded that the amount of value-added tax reduced paid by the said transport employees was paid as the said amount of value-added tax reduced service usage fee, and even if the Plaintiff paid the said amount of value-added tax reduced in the form of wages or cash, such circumstances alone are insufficient to reverse that the Plaintiff used the said amount for improving the treatment and welfare of transport employees.

(A) On August 29, 2008, the Plaintiff’s transport employees had the duty to pay the Plaintiff a call service fee according to the labor and company agreement, and there is no evidence to readily conclude that the 143 transport employees paid the Plaintiff a call service fee as the amount of value-added tax reduced that was paid by the Plaintiff in the form of wages or cash.

(B) In light of the fact that 35 employees, among the Plaintiff’s transport employees from January 208 to August 8, 2008, did not pay a call service fee, the Plaintiff does not seem to have uniformly collected a value-added tax reduction amount for transport employees as a call service fee.

(C) In light of the fact that there is no way to compulsorily estimate the reduced value-added tax paid by the Plaintiff for transport employees who did not pay the use fee of the Nab call service, the payment of the Nab call service fee seems to be based on the voluntary will of transport employees.

(4) However, the Plaintiff did not pay 00 won out of the amount of value-added tax reduced for the first period of 2008 for transport employees and used 00 won as the successful call fee for the above 000 won cannot be deemed as used for improving the treatment and welfare of transport employees (the amount of value-added tax reduced for the first period of 2008 for transport employees. The amount of tax reduced for the first period of 2000 won is 00 won, and the amount of tax reduced for the wage half of 00 won paid by the Plaintiff to transport employees exceeds the above 00 won if the amount of tax reduced for the first period of 200 won exceeds the above 00 won, but the amount paid exceeding the value-added tax reduced amount is irrelevant to the amount of value-added tax reduced, while the Plaintiff’s above 00 won is not used for improving the treatment and welfare of transport employees, the total amount of the above 00 won should be deemed as not used for its original purpose).

(5) Sub-committee

The amount of money not used by the plaintiff for improving treatment and welfare of transport employees is KRW 000 out of the amount of value-added tax reduced for the first period of 2008, and the remaining amount of value-added tax reduced for the year 2008 was used for improving treatment and welfare of transport employees.

Therefore, among each disposition of this case, the imposition of value-added tax for the first period of August 3, 2008, value-added tax for the second period of 2008, 000 won for the second period of 2008, and 000 won for the second period of 2008 on December 1, 2009 is unlawful. The imposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2008 on September 22, 2009, and the imposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2000 won for the first period of 2008 on December 1, 2009 (the amount of value-added tax for the first period of 200 won for the first period of 200 won for the first period of 200 won for the first period of 200 won for the first period of 200 won for the above imposition of value-added tax (the amount of value-added tax for the second period of 200 won for the second period of 20000.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim regarding the illegal part among the dispositions of this case is revoked in its entirety on the grounds that it is reasonable, and all of the plaintiff's claim concerning the remaining legitimate part is dismissed on the ground that it is reasonable. The decision of the court of first instance is modified