Open Decision Ledger · Tax & international taxation
Card brand contributions: withholding report duty and value-added tax
Supreme Court, July 28, 2022, 2019Du33903 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 법인세등부과처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When a domestic credit card company pays a foreign card company a contribution covering the share of member banks it represents, does the contribution include consideration for services supplied to those banks so that the corporate tax and value-added tax assessments are unlawful to that extent, and does the card company also bear the duty to submit a withholding report for that share?
Holding
Yes to the first, and no to the second. The Supreme Court accepted that the contributions paid to MasterCard International Incorporated included the share that the eleven domestic member banks had to pay as consideration for services supplied to them, so the corporate tax and value-added tax assessments were unlawful to that extent; because the card issuer's own share and the agency share could not be distinguished, the value-added tax assessment had to be cancelled in full. For the agency share the card issuer bore no duty to submit a withholding report, because neither an express mandate nor facts supporting an implied mandate from the member banks appeared in the record.
Points at issue, verbatim
분담금에는 주 회원을 갑 회사로 하여 을 회사의 카드 관련 활동에 참여하는 제휴 회원인 국내 회원은행들이 을 회사로부터 공급받은 용역의 대가로서 회원은행들이 을 회사에 지급하여야 하는 분담금이 포함되어 있으므로
Unofficial English translation
since the contributions include the contributions that the domestic member banks, which are affiliated members participating in Company B's card-related activities with Company A as the principal member, must pay to Company B as consideration for services supplied to them by Company B
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal are borne by the defendant.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
묵시적 위임이 있다고 하기 위해서는 명시적 위임이 있는 경우와 동일시할 수 있을 정도로 그 위임 의사를 추단할 만한 사정이 있어야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
In order for an implied mandate to be found to exist, there must be circumstances from which the intention to grant the mandate can be inferred to such an extent as to be equivalent to the case where an express mandate exists.
Factors
- 을 회사 상표가 사용된 신용카드를 발급하면서 을 회사에 분담금을 지급하였는데
- 분담금에는 주 회원을 갑 회사로 하여 을 회사의 카드 관련 활동에 참여하는 제휴 회원인 국내 회원은행들이 을 회사로부터 공급받은 용역의 대가로서 회원은행들이 을 회사에 지급하여야 하는 분담금이 포함되어 있으므로
- 갑 회사에 대한 법인세 처분과 부가가치세 처분은 각각 그 범위에서 위법하고
- 분담금 중 갑 회사의 고유사업분과 대행사업분을 구분할 수 없으므로 위 처분은 전부 취소되어야 한다고
- 원천징수대상 소득의 발생 원인이 되는 법률행위 등을 하고 그 소득금액을 지급한 경우, 원천징수업무 등의 묵시적인 위임이 있었다고 볼 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 적극)
Unofficial English translation
• while issuing credit cards bearing Company B's trademark, paid contributions to Company B
• since the contributions include the contributions that the domestic member banks, which are affiliated members participating in Company B's card-related activities with Company A as the principal member, must pay to Company B as consideration for services supplied to them by Company B
• the corporate tax disposition and the value-added tax disposition against Company A are each unlawful to that extent, and
• since the portions of the contributions attributable to Company A's own business and to the agency business cannot be distinguished, the said disposition must be revoked in its entirety
• whether, where a person performs a juristic act, etc. that constitutes the cause of the occurrence of income subject to withholding and pays that income amount, it may be regarded that there was an implied entrustment of the withholding work, etc. (in principle, affirmative)
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2014. 7. 24. 선고 2010두27479 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2010Du27479 decided July 24, 2014
Decisions referred to
[2] 대법원 2014. 7. 24. 선고 2010두27479 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the principal member both concludes the membership agreement covering the member banks and pays their share of the contribution, what further fact shows or excludes an implied mandate from those banks to withhold the tax and submit the report?
A record showing authority or a mandate from the member banks for the withheld tax and the report would reopen the withholding-report question. So would a later decision revising the standard for an implied mandate, or an amendment and renumbering of Article 120-2 of the Corporation Tax Act and Article 164 of the Income Tax Act.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the principal member both concludes the membership agreement covering the member banks and pays their share of the contribution, what further fact shows or excludes an implied mandate from those banks to withhold the tax and submit the report?” vs Independent “Do all of the assessments constitute royalty income, or should some be classified as business income?”
The primary reading asks what further fact would show or exclude an implied mandate from the banks. The independent reading asks whether the whole assessment is royalty income or part is business income, which is a different classification question.
분담금에는 주 회원을 갑 회사로 하여 을 회사의 카드 관련 활동에 참여하는 제휴 회원인 국내 회원은행들이 을 회사로부터 공급받은 용역의 대가로서 회원은행들이 을 회사에 지급하여야 하는 분담금이 포함되어 있으므로Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 15 January 2019 (2018Nu37481), found that MasterCard charged the member banks no separate contribution and required the principal member to pay their shares as well, so the contributions paid by the card issuer included consideration for services supplied to the member banks. It held the corporate tax and value-added tax assessments unlawful to that extent, cancelled the value-added tax assessment in full because the own share and the agency share could not be distinguished, and, on the corporate tax assessment, accepted in the alternative that the royalty part and the business income part were likewise indistinguishable so that the assessment had to be cancelled in full.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the appellate reasons against the relevant law and the record, it held that the court below had not misunderstood the law on who must submit the withholding report or perform the value-added tax agency payment for the contributions. On the alternative holding about the split between royalty and business income, it noted that the corporate tax assessment was unlawful for the same indistinguishability reason, so that reasoning could not affect the outcome and needed no further examination; the Justices unanimously dismissed the appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the foreign card company charges each member bank a separate contribution, so that the principal member's payments contain no agency share.
- A case in which the card issuer received express authority or a mandate from the member banks to withhold their corporate tax and submit the report, so that it acts as their agent or mandatary.
- A case in which the own share and the agency share of the contributions can be distinguished, so that the assessments survive within the distinguishable range.
Record verification notes
Set the file against three points before relying on this decision: whether the contributions in fact contained the member banks' share, whether any express mandate or circumstances supporting an implied mandate from those banks appear, and whether the own and agency shares can be told apart. Then confirm which version of the Acts applies, since the decision applied the former Corporation Tax Act (before its amendment by Act No. 8141 of 30 December 2006), the former Value-added Tax Act (before its amendment by Act No. 9915 of 1 January 2010) and the former Income Tax Act (before its amendment by Act No. 8144 of 30 December 2006).
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 여신전문금융업법에 따라 신용카드업을 하는 갑 주식회사가 미합중국 법률에 따라 설립된 미합중국법인인 을 회사와 회원자격협약을 체결하고 을 회사 상표가 사용된 신용카드를 발급하면서 을 회사에 분담금을 지급하였는데, 관할 세무서장이 위 분담금은 구 법인세법 제93조 제9호 (가)목에서 국내원천소득으로 정한 상표권 사용의 대가에 해당한다고 보아, 갑 회사에 구 법인세법 제120조의2가 정한 지급조서를 제출하지 않았다는 이유로 제76조 제7항에 따라 지급조서 미제출 가산세를 부과하고, 갑 회사가 구 부가가치세법 제34조 제1항에 따른 부가가치세 대리납부의무를 이행하지 않았다는 이유로 구 부가가치세법 제34조 제2항에 따라 위 분담금에 관한 부가가치세 납부를 고지한 사안에서, 분담금에는 주 회원을 갑 회사로 하여 을 회사의 카드 관련 활동에 참여하는 제휴 회원인 국내 회원은행들이 을 회사로부터 공급받은 용역의 대가로서 회원은행들이 을 회사에 지급하여야 하는 분담금이 포함되어 있으므로 갑 회사에 대한 법인세 처분과 부가가치세 처분은 각각 그 범위에서 위법하고, 부가가치세 처분과 관련하여 분담금 중 갑 회사의 고유사업분과 대행사업분을 구분할 수 없으므로 위 처분은 전부 취소되어야 한다고 본 원심판결을 수긍한 사례 [2] 구 법인세법 제120조의2 제2항이 준용하는 구 소득세법 제164조 제9항에 따른 ‘지급자를 대리하거나 그 위임을 받은 자로서 그 수권이나 위임의 범위 안에서 지급조서 제출의무를 부담하는 자’의 의미 / 일정한 국내원천소득금액을 지급해야 할 자로부터 원천납세의무자에 대한 소득금액의 지급과 아울러 원천납세의무자의 법인세를 원천징수하는 업무와 원천징수에 따른 지급조서를 제출하고 원천징수한 법인세를 관할 세무서에 납부할 업무 등의 위임에 있어 묵시적 위임이 있다고 하기 위한 요건 / 소득금액을 지급하여야 할 자를 대리하거나 그로부터 위임을 받아 원천징수대상 소득의 발생 원인이 되는 법률행위 등을 하고 그 소득금액을 지급한 경우, 원천징수업무 등의 묵시적인 위임이 있었다고 볼 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] In a case where Company A, a stock company engaging in the credit card business under the Credit Specialized Financial Business Act, entered into a membership agreement with Company B, a corporation incorporated under the laws of the United States of America, and, while issuing credit cards bearing Company B's trademark, paid contributions to Company B; where the competent tax office director regarded the said contributions as consideration for the use of trademark rights, which is defined as domestic-source income under item (a) of subparagraph 9 of Article 93 of the former Corporate Tax Act, imposed on Company A, pursuant to Article 76, paragraph (7), an additional tax for failure to submit a withholding statement on the ground that Company A failed to submit the withholding statement as prescribed in Article 120-2 of the former Corporate Tax Act, and, on the ground that Company A failed to perform its obligation to pay value-added tax as agent under Article 34, paragraph (1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act, notified Company A, pursuant to Article 34, paragraph (2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act, of the payment of value-added tax on the said contributions; since the contributions include the contributions that the domestic member banks, which are affiliated members participating in Company B's card-related activities with Company A as the principal member, must pay to Company B as consideration for services supplied to them by Company B, the corporate tax disposition and the value-added tax disposition against Company A are each unlawful to that extent, and, in relation to the value-added tax disposition, since the portions of the contributions attributable to Company A's own business and to the agency business cannot be distinguished, the said disposition must be revoked in its entirety; a case in which the judgment of the court below, which so held, is affirmed [2] The meaning of 'a person who represents the payer or is entrusted by the payer and bears the duty to submit a withholding statement within the scope of such authority or mandate' under paragraph (9) of Article 164 of the former Income Tax Act, which is applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to paragraph (2) of Article 120-2 of the former Corporate Tax Act / The requirements for finding an implied mandate in the entrustment, by a person who must pay a certain amount of domestic-source income, of the work of withholding the corporate tax of the taxpayer subject to withholding together with the payment of the income amount to the taxpayer subject to withholding, and of the work of submitting a withholding statement resulting from the withholding and paying the withheld corporate tax to the competent tax office, etc. / Whether, where a person represents the person who must pay the income amount, or is entrusted by such person, performs a juristic act, etc. that constitutes the cause of the occurrence of income subject to withholding and pays that income amount, it may be regarded that there was an implied entrustment of the withholding work, etc. (in principle, affirmative)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal are borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 법인세법(2006. 12. 30. 법률 제8141호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제76조 제7항(현행 제75조의7 제1항 참조), 제93조 제9호 (가)목(현행 제93조 제8호 (가)목 참조), 제120조의2 제1항, 구 부가가치세법(2010. 1. 1. 법률 제9915호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제34조 제1항(현행 제52조 제1항 참조) [2] 구 소득세법(2006. 12. 30. 법률 제8144호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제164조 제1항, 제9항(현행 제164조 제8항 참조), 구 법인세법(2006. 12. 30. 법률 제8141호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제120조의2 제2항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger