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

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence 2 and Eul evidence 1.

A. On May 2, 2006, the Plaintiff was selected as the main supervisor of the '2006 International Maritime War' held around November 2006, as the hosting of the Gyeongnam-do and Changwon-si on May 2, 2006.

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 tax for the second taxable period of February 2006, the Plaintiff reported that the instant subsidies are not included in the tax base, and 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 conducted an audit on the Defendant’s business affairs, 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 national tax adjudication on March 3, 2009, but the claim was dismissed on October 12, 2009.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The instant industrial complex is the subject of subsidies, and the Plaintiff is the executor of the instant project. The instant subsidy is paid to the Plaintiff, who is the executor of the instant project, in order to compensate for losses incurred while supervising the instant industrial complex, not to receive the payment for the provision of exhibition agency services to the State or local governments. Therefore, the instant subsidy is a national subsidy that is not directly related to the supply of services, and thus, should 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 same Act. Nevertheless, the instant disposition is unlawful.

2) The defendant's assertion

A) The instant subsidy is the Plaintiff’s provision of services by proxy to the Gyeongnam-do and Changwon-si prior to the instant industry and received as a consideration therefor. Accordingly, the instant subsidy is a national subsidy directly related to the supply of services, and thus, it is not a national subsidy prescribed in Article 13(2)4 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 48(10) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and should be included in the tax base.

B) Even if the instant subsidy should be excluded from the tax base, the Plaintiff was supplied goods or services with the national subsidy in relation to the instant industry, and such input tax amount constitutes an input tax amount not directly related to the business under Article 17(2)3 of the Value-Added Tax Act, or should not be deducted as the same concept as the input tax amount related to the tax-free business under subparagraph 6 of the same Article.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings as stated in Gap evidence 3, 6, and 7-1.

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.

2) The Gyeongnam-do and Changwon-si paid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 1,338,212,00 as subsidies. 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, promotional expenses, simultaneous event expenses, loan attracting expenses, etc.

D. Determination

위 인정사실 및 변론 전체의 취지에 나타나는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 이 사건 산업전 의 주최기관이 경상남도 및 창원시이고, 이 사건 협약서의 내용상 경상남도 및 창원시가 행사기획 및 주요사항 결정, 산업전 사무국 설치 ・ 운영 등의 역할을 하며, 원고로부터 업무추진현황 및 추진계획을 보고받고, 이 사건 산업전의 업무처리에 관하여 최종적인 결정권한을 가지는 등으로 이 사건 산업전의 개최 여부 및 행사의 내용이 경상남도 및 창원시에게 전적으로 달려 있는 점, 이에 비하여 원고가 이 사건 산업전의 주관사로서 한 역할은 참가업체 유치, 관리, 부스 배치, 관람객 및 바이어 유치 등으로 이 사건 산업전의 준비, 운용 등의 실무적 업무인 점, 위와 같은 이 사건 산업전의 준비, 운용 업무는 원래 주최기관인 경상남도 및 창원시가 하여야 할 것인 점, 경상남도 및 창원시가 원고에게 이 사건 산업전의 주관사 역할을 위한 지원금 명목으로 이 사건 보조금을 지급한 점, 실제로 원고가 경상남도 및 창원시로부터 지급받은 이 사건 보조금을 전시장 조성비, 홍보비, 동시 행사비, 바이어 유치비 등으로 사용한 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 원고가 이 사건 산업전의 주관사로서 경상남도 및 창원시에게 이 사건 산업전의 참가업체 선정, 관리 등의 전시대행 용역을 공급하는 대가로 이 사건 보조금이 원고에게 지급되었다고 폼이 상당하고, 갑 제1, 8, 9, 10호증의 각 기재란으로는 위 쉰 정에 방해가 되지 아니한다.

Ultimately, the instant subsidy cannot be deemed a national subsidy that is not directly related to the supply of services under Article 13(2)4 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 48(10) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Thus, the instant subsidy should be included in the tax base. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

그렇다면, 원고의 이 사건 청구는 이유 없으므로 이를 기각하기로ι하여 주문과 같이 판결한다.