[부가가치세부과처분취소청구사건][하집1984(1),689]
Whether it is subject to value-added tax or not by Know Choe (Fe)
The introduction of so-called so-called "Know" method is not included in the supply of services under Article 7 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, but it is not subject to value-added tax for the consideration that the owner uses the same as the industrial property or patent right, because the owner is in a secret state only while he/she actually uses the technology in a secret state. Thus, the provision of technology in the so-called "Know" method does not include the supply of services under Article 7 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act and it is not subject to value-added tax.
Article 7 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act
Korea Lri Industries Corporation
Head of Mapo Tax Office
1. The imposition of the value-added tax of 105,948,726 won on July 4, 1981 by the defendant against the plaintiff as of July 4, 1981 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
The same shall apply to the order.
1. On July 4, 1981, the fact that the Defendant imposed the same disposition as the order for the Plaintiff (hereinafter in this case) is without dispute between the parties, Eul evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 5-1 through 8, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 7, and Eul evidence 9-1 to 7, and the whole purport of the pleading 9: The Plaintiff is a domestic corporation using the same order for manufacturing, processing and selling glass 1 to 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 7, 7, 9, 7, 7, 7, 9, 7, 7, 7, 9, 4, 7, 7, 7, 3, 4, 5, 4, 5, 7, 5, 5, 5, 9, 5, 5, 6, 9, 6, 7, and 9, 5,000,000 so-, 3,000
2. On the ground of the above disposition, the defendant asserts that the amount paid by the plaintiff to the above foreign company is nothing more than the price for the introduction of so-called n-h-e of the technology under the so-called n-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-, which is the price for use by introducing knowledge, technology or guidelines on the manufacturing process of n-h-h-h-h-h, and that the n-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-, which is not an intangible property value but is not subject to value added tax, and the disposition of this case should be revoked as it is illegal, since it is argued that the above disposition of this case should be revoked. Thus, if the plaintiff maintains the whole purport of the above n-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h--h--h---h--h---h--h--h---h-h-h------------h--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.........
According to the above facts, the plaintiff's act of supplying the above technology and/or the technology and/or value-added tax under the so-called No. 1, which was introduced by the above No. 7 Law or under the above No. 1, is an act of supplying the above technology and/or value-added tax to the above No. 2, which is not an act of supplying the above technology and/or under the No. 1, it can be viewed as an act of supplying the above technology and/or under the No. 2, which is not an act of supplying the above technology and/or under the No. 4, which is not an act of supplying the above technology and/or under the No. 1, the No. 7, which is an act of supplying the above technology and/or under the No. 2, which is not an act of supplying the above technology and/or under the No. 1, which is an act of supplying the above technology and/or under the No. 2, which is not an act of supplying the above technology and/or under the No. 1, it can be viewed as an act of offering. 3.
3. If so, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful, and thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Kim Jong-Un (Presiding Judge) Guil-do