(영문) 대법원 2001. 3. 15. 선고 2000두7131 전원합의체 판결[부가가치세등부과처분취소][집49(1)특,621;공2001.5.1.(129),904]
[1] Whether the scope of supply of the ancillary goods exempted under the Value-Added Tax Act should be limited only to the relevant entrepreneur’s own transaction (affirmative)
[2] The case holding that the value-added tax on the supply of smuggling shall not be imposed until the supply stage of interim collection and sales where a grain processing business operator is supplied with smuggling, etc. and resells it to a third party, in case where the grain processing business operator produces and supplies them along with smuggling, etc., as its main goods, since the smuggling, which is a tax-free goods, is a subsidiary product related to the supply of smuggling, is exempted only at the stage of supply by the business operator
[1] Comprehensively considering the provisions of Article 1(1), (2), and (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act, the supply of all goods or services shall be subject to value-added tax unless otherwise specifically provided by the Act. The interpretation of tax laws and regulations by blocking the requirements for taxation, non-taxation, or tax reduction or exemption under the principle of no taxation without law shall be strictly interpreted in accordance with the legal text and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds, barring any special circumstances. Thus, the scope of deeming that the supply of goods or services, which are essential for the supply of goods or services exempt from value-added tax, is included in the supply of goods or services exempt from value-added tax pursuant to Article 12(3) of the Value-Added Tax Act, shall be limited to only the supply of the main goods or services, which are necessarily incidental thereto, and shall be limited
[2] The case holding that the value-added tax on the supply of smuggling shall not be imposed until the supply stage of interim collection and sales where a grain processing business operator is supplied with smuggling, etc. and resells it to a third party, in case where the grain processing business operator produces and supplies them along with smuggling, etc., as its main goods, since the smuggling, which is a tax-free goods, is a subsidiary product related to the supply of smuggling, is exempted only at the stage of supply by that business operator, and the supply of smuggling, which is an incidental product related to the supply of smuggling, is exempted only at the stage of supply by that business operator
[1] Articles 1, 12(1), (3), and Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act / [2] Articles 1(4), 12(1)1 and (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 3 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 83Nu616 delivered on October 22, 1985 (Gong1985, 1554), Supreme Court Decision 85Nu954 delivered on October 28, 1986 (Gong1986, 3136), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu13381 delivered on February 14, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1363)
Plaintiff
Head of Pyeongtaek Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu439 delivered on July 18, 2000
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
In full view of the provisions of Article 1(1), (2), and (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the supply of all goods or services shall be subject to value-added tax, unless otherwise specifically provided for in the Act. Under the principle of no taxation without the law, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be strictly interpreted in accordance with the legal text, barring any special circumstance, and it shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without any reasonable reason (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu1381, Feb. 14, 195), and Article 12(3) of the Act, and the scope of deeming that the supply of goods or services inevitably incidental to the supply of goods or services exempt from value-added tax is included in the supply of goods or services subject to value-added tax-added tax-free goods shall be limited to only the supply of the main goods or services, and it shall be limited to only one of the supply of the goods or services that are essentially incidental thereto.
Therefore, in a case where a grain processing business operator produces and supplies, along with smuggling, etc. in the process of spraying foreign acid smuggling, the main goods are exempt from taxation, and the supply of smuggling, which is an incidental product related to the supply of the smuggling, is also exempted only from taxation at the stage of the business operator’s supply. As in this case, the value-added tax on the supply of smuggling is not exempt from taxation at the stage of supply for interim collection and sale where the grain processing business operator is supplied with smuggling from the grain processing business operator, and resells it again to a third party.
Accordingly, we decide to amend the precedents, including the Supreme Court Decision 85Nu954 Decided October 28, 1986, to the extent that they conflict with the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Ultimately, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no illegality in its judgment, such as misapprehension of legal principles as to business relevance related to the scope of goods subject to tax exemption, nature of supply and its tax-free provisions, or violation of the statutes or precedents.
All of the arguments in the grounds of appeal are rejected.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice)
Justices Song Jin-hun-hun (Presiding Justice)
The Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Son Ji-yol