2020년 부가가치세법 및 관세법 판례회고

This study reviewed the five noticeable Supreme Court’s decisions in 2020 related to the Value-Added Tax Act and Customs Act. Regarding the Value-Added Tax Act related decisions, the Supreme Court ruled in case <2019Du43238> dated January 16, 2020 that when a customer accumulates mileage, etc. that can be used for another business operator other than oneself and the settlement amount is paid to that business operator, the settlement amount cannot be constituted as a discount. This reaffirmed the legal principle from the majority opinion of the previous Supreme Court’s full bench case <2015Du58959> dated August 26, 2016 that the accumulation of mileage, etc. was merely an ‘indication of discount agreements’ in the future. However, as the current Value-Added Tax Act regulates that business operators who receive payments as mileage, etc. to include the preserved settlement amount in the value of supply, there is a possibility of logical conflict with the conclusion of the above case. Based on the Supreme Court case <2017Du49157> dated September 3, 2020, it was determined that if the previously refunded value-added tax is to be returned due to cancellation of contract after comprehensive transfer of business, the comprehensive transferee shall bear the obligation to return it. Specifically, this was the case that clarified the concept of comprehensive transfer of business not considered supply under the Value-Added Tax Act and the matter of responsibility under the public law on tax obligations or risks arising from the cancellation of contracts, which could be a reference when entering into a contract. Regarding the Customs Act related decisions, the Supreme Court ruled in case <2016Du63408> dated February 27, 2020 that when formal requirements for the declaration principal of the certificate of origin are not met under the Korea-EU FTA, the application of the FTA preferential rate could be excluded. Although the specificity of the Korea-EU FTA, which sets the requirements for issuing origin approved exporters, was considered, it can be viewed as a reminder of the importance of compliance with formal requirements regarding the certificate of origin under the FTA. The Supreme Court case <2018Du57599> dated February 27, 2020 is meaningful that the determination criteria of reproducing rights to exclude from the customs value were proposed and also that the scope of reproducing rights was expanded to include the right to broadcast intangible videos, not limited to the right to produce tangible articles. Based on the Supreme Court case <2015Du745> dated February 13, 2020, the legal principle on the duplicate tax audits under the Framework Act on National Taxes was applied equally to the principle of prohibiting reinvestigation under Article 111 of the Customs Act, which confirmed that customs investigations cannot be an exception to the principle of due process under the Constitution.