2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On May 8, 200, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer from Non-Party OO on the ground of sale with respect to the land of 000 large scale 670.2 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) and the ground floor of 1st, 2,530.84 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) and the total floor area of 6th,530.84 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant building”), and run the real estate leasing business from the instant real estate since that time.

B. The head of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the "head of Yangcheon-gu") has obtained authorization for an implementation plan under Article 88 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act in order to establish access roads to the O2 promotion zone (hereinafter referred to as the "urban planning project in case where the head of Yangcheon-gu") and publicly notify April 6, 2009 of Yangcheon-gu.

The notice was made.

C. The head of Yangcheon-gu had consulted with the Plaintiff to acquire the instant real estate to be incorporated into the instant urban planning project zone, but did not reach an agreement, and the Seoul Regional Land Tribunal made an application for adjudication on July 23, 2010 on the expropriation date on September 10, 2010 (hereinafter “instant expropriation ruling”).

D. The Plaintiff filed an objection while disputing the amount of compensation under the instant expropriation ruling, and the Central Land Tribunal, on October 8, 2010, received KRW 000,000,000,000 from the head of Yangcheon-gu on October 26, 2010. In particular, according to the details of compensation under the above ruling, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to relocate the instant building to another place, and thus, it is constituted an appraisal value calculated by multiplying the unit price per square meter of each sectional store by the area under Article 75(1)1 or 2 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (hereinafter “Public Works Act”), and the amount of compensation or the cost of removal of the building is not included in the output tax or the cost of removal.

E. The Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land based on the expropriation on September 10, 2010, and did not register ownership transfer for the instant building in accordance with the instant expropriation ruling.

F. On October 1, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a report on the removal and destruction of the instant building with the head of Yangcheon-gu on October 1, 2010, and filed a report completion certificate (from October 8, 2010 to November 30, 2010). On November 23, 2010, the head of Yangcheon-gu completed the removal of the instant building through GG Environmental Enterprise Co., Ltd., GGE (hereinafter “the removal date”) with respect to the instant urban planning project, and the head of Yangcheon-gu completed the removal of the instant building through the removal and waste disposal service business company (hereinafter “the removal date”), and the real estate register of the instant building was also closed on the grounds of the destruction of the building.

G. The Plaintiff reported the closure of real estate rental business on October 31, 2010, and thereafter, to the Defendant on November 25, 2010.

The value of the building in this case is KRW 000 and KRW 000, which reflects the output tax amount and KRW 000,000 for the second period of 2010.

H. On November 8, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction against the Defendant for refund of KRW 000 of the value-added tax amount fixed as indicated in the following table, because the instant building compensation is not subject to value-added tax, and the Defendant rendered a disposition of refusal against the Plaintiff’s claim for correction on the ground that the Plaintiff’s receipt of the instant building compensation falls under the supply of goods (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

I. Upon receipt of an objection, the Plaintiff filed a request for trial with the Tax Tribunal on April 5, 2012, while the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on June 26, 2012.

[Based on Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant compensation is not for the supply of the instant building, but for the removal of the building, and cannot be deemed as subject to value added tax. Therefore, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) According to Article 6(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, where a business operator delivers or transfers goods under a contractual or legal reason, it is subject to value-added tax, and in light of the nature of value-added tax, the delivery or transfer of the goods is premised on the act of transferring the ownership so that the goods can be used and consumed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du1675, Feb. 9, 199; 89Meu1401, Feb. 13, 1990). Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the supply of goods under Article 6(1) of the Act shall be prescribed as follows; Article 6(4) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the goods shall be purchased at auction or investment in kind, or other contractual grounds, and Article 6(4) (hereinafter referred to as "the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act") provides that the goods are not transferred at the cost of the relevant public works, and Article 6(1)(4) of the Act provides that the goods shall not be expropriated.

2) Whether the act of receiving compensation for losses in return for the expropriation of a building, like the Plaintiff, constitutes the scope of the supply of goods under Article 6(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree thereof. Considering the following reasons, “Where the owner of goods subject to expropriation receives the compensation for the goods on the condition that the goods are removed” under Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the instant case means where the project operator acquires them for direct use for public works (Article 75(1) of the

No. 3) It is nothing more than planned to remove the building due to the implementation of the relevant public works, and it is judged that the project operator does not acquire the utility value of the building, but it is physically impossible or economically impossible for the project operator to relocate the building (Article 1 (1) 1) and the amount equivalent to the price of the building is determined by the method of compensation for the reasons, such as light rain (Article 1 (1) 2), and whether the owner of the building directly bears the cost of removal or the removal of the building is not related to the application of the above provision.

① Although the previous Supreme Court precedents included the value of a building in the purchase price of a building and land, it is anticipated that the relevant building will be removed due to the implementation of the project, not focusing on the transfer of ownership of the building or the duty to deliver the building. As such, the part equivalent to the value of the building in the purchase price is not the price for the supply of the goods, but compensation for losses arising from the removal of the building, and it has the nature of the goods under Article 6(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act. After considering the aforementioned position of the precedents, the instant provision of the Enforcement Decree newly established by Presidential Decree No. 19892 on February 28, 2007 is interpreted as the legislative intent to protect taxpayers by clarifying that the business operator does not acquire the value of the goods used for the goods, but if the goods are removed, it is not the case where the business operator removes the goods.

② The provision of the Enforcement Decree of this case is interpreted as applicable only when the owner of the goods subject to expropriation directly removes the goods. However, the compensation for a building in the land expropriation procedure is only made in accordance with the requirements and procedures prescribed by the Act and subordinate statutes, such as Article 75 of the Public Works Act. Therefore, it is very difficult to present the case where the owner of the building did not have any decision to expropriate the building in the expropriation procedure, and the cost equivalent to the value of the building and the cost of removal are compensated by the project implementer after the removal of the building. Moreover, in the case of an ordinary large-scale development project, such as the urban rearrangement project, it is common in case where the project implementer delegates the removal of the area to the specialized project owner, and it is highly likely that the said provision newly established to protect the taxpayer if the owner of the goods is limited to the owner of the goods. Accordingly, it is reasonable to interpret that the owner of the goods receives the compensation for the goods under the condition that the removal is made by the owner of the goods.

③ As in this case, when an urban planning project implementer pays or deposits compensation for losses due to the expropriation ruling of the Land Tribunal, it does not have any legal means to receive an amount equivalent to the value-added tax on the compensation for losses in addition to the value-added tax on the compensation for losses; and when an entrepreneur supplies goods or services, the amount equivalent to the value-added tax should be collected from the person who is provided with the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da49153, Feb. 13, 2004; 96Da40677, Apr. 25, 1997; 96Da40684, Apr. 25, 1997). Furthermore, in such a situation, the legal means to receive the amount of value-added tax on the compensation for the building as obstacles from the urban planning project implementer under the Value-Added Tax Act does not exist.

④ Supreme Court Decision 2010Du2647 Decided December 22, 2011, which held that a building owner cannot extensively interpret the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the instant case until the removal of goods acquired through consultation, is purported that the provisions of the instant Enforcement Decree are not applied where the building owner sells the building in accordance with the consultation procedure under Article 16 of the Public Works Act and the project operator completes the registration of ownership transfer, and thus, the land expropriation procedure is

The nature of the case is different from that of this case.

3) In applying the above legal principles to this case, in the instant urban planning project aimed at building roads, the building in this case was planned to be demolished, and Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government has not received the registration of transfer of ownership from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has completed the report of removal or destruction of the building in its name after the decision of expropriation of this case, and since the removal of the building in this case is deemed impossible, the expropriation compensation in this case has been set as equivalent to the appraised value of the building in this case. In light of the above legal principles, the expropriation compensation in this case is planned to remove the building in this case because the project operator does not directly acquire the building for the purpose of the public works, but the project operator is not expected to acquire the usage value of the building in this case, but it is not possible to move the building physically or economically impossible, and it is reasonable to view that the price equivalent to the building in this case was excluded from the supply of goods pursuant to the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of this case. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is reasonable, and the disposition in this case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.