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

The following facts may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties or in the entry in Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, and the whole purport of the pleadings.

A. On May 2, 2006, the Plaintiff was selected as a manager of the '2006 International Maritime Industry Complex' held around November 2006 as the Gyeongnam-do and Changwon-si.

B. The Plaintiff received subsidies from the Gyeongnam-do and Changwon-si in relation to the instant industry during the second taxable period of February 2006 (hereinafter “instant subsidies”). While reporting value added taxes at the second taxable period of February 2006, the instant subsidies do not include the instant subsidies in the tax base, and on the other hand, reported that the input tax amount is deducted for the goods or services supplied with the instant subsidies as financial resources.

C. After that, the Seoul Regional Tax Office performed an audit on the Defendant’s business, and notified the Defendant that the subsidy should be included in the tax base. On December 5, 2008, the Defendant rendered a disposition imposing value-added tax of KRW 170,305,220 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for a national tax adjudication on March 3, 2009, but the said request was dismissed on October 12, 2009.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant industrial complex is a subsidized project subject to subsidies, and the Plaintiff, who was in charge of the instant industrial complex, is the executor of the instant subsidized project. The instant subsidies received from the Plaintiff, who was the executor of the instant subsidized project, to compensate for losses incurred in the course of supervising the instant industrial complex, not to receive the Plaintiff’s payment for the provision of exhibition agency services to the State, local governments, etc. Accordingly, the instant subsidies are national subsidies not directly related to the provision of services. As such, the instant subsidies ought to be excluded from the tax base pursuant to Article 13(2)4 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 48(10) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, but

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 3, 6, and 7-1, respectively, based on the whole purport of the pleadings.

(1) On May 4, 2006, the Plaintiff drafted an agreement between Gyeongnam-do and Changwon-si, a host organization, on the promotion of the international maritime industry (hereinafter “instant agreement”). The main contents are as follows.

(Non-Agreement on Promotion of Services)

(2) In accordance with the instant agreement, Gyeongnam-do and Changwon-si paid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 1,338,212,00 as a subsidy for the instant industry, and the Plaintiff used KRW 1,335,941,570 among them and returned KRW 2,270,430.

(3) The Plaintiff used the above subsidies for exhibition creation expenses, promotion expenses, simultaneous event expenses, loan attracting expenses, etc.

D. Determination

(1) Article 13(2)4 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same) provides for a subsidy and a public subsidy as one not included in the tax base for value-added tax. The above provision is interpreted to include a subsidy or a public subsidy in the value-added tax base for value-added tax pursuant to Article 13(2)4 of the former Value-Added Tax Act where a business operator liable to pay value-added tax by supplying goods or services supplies goods or services as an executor of a subsidized business who is eligible for a national subsidy or a public subsidy, and receives a national subsidy or a public subsidy, the relevant business operator shall not be included in the above tax base for value-added tax on the supply of goods or services (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Du369, Oct. 9, 201). The purpose of excluding this subsidy from the tax base for value-added tax is to achieve effectively the purpose of financial support by non-taxation on a subsidized business, and to promote or promote specific goods or services.

(2) According to the above-mentioned facts and evidence, the plaintiff's allegation that the above-mentioned subsidy was to be provided to the plaintiff 1, i.e., the 1, South-do government and the Changnam-si government. According to the 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 8, 4, 4, 5, 5, 8, 5, 6, 8, 6, 8, 8, 6, 8, 6, 8, 6, 8, 6, 8, 4, 6, 6, 6, 8, 8, 6, 8, 6, 6, 8, 6, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 1, 6, 6, 6, 1, 3, 3, 5, 6, 4, 1, 6, 2, 3, 6, 6, 3.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.