2. The Defendant’s rejection of the Defendant’s claim for correction against 20O.O.O. AA. corporation for the first term of 201, the value-added tax for the second term of 201, the value-added tax for the second term of 201, and the value-added tax for the first term of 2012 shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit are borne by the Defendant.

This part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of some contents as follows. Thus, pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the corresponding

(D) Parts to be removed or added

2. From 7 to 7, "AA Co., Ltd. (O court 20O.O.O.O.O.O.O. (20O.O.O.)" is a corporation established for the purpose of establishing 20O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O. (20O.O.O.O.) "(20O.O.O.O., 20O.O., 20O.O.O., and 20O.O.O., etc.) of AA under the declaration of bankruptcy, the plaintiff taken over the lawsuit of this case."O.O.O.O.O., etc. (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff for convenience") for the purpose of establishing 20O.O.O.O.O., directly or indirectly related to the construction, management, and operation of the AA facilities.

Two pages 10 "No. 119-62" shall be changed to "No. 1996-2".

4 pages 12 "The plaintiff was served on June 20, 2014". The plaintiff was served on June 20, 2014.

The 4th parallel " September 20, 2014" shall be changed to " September 18, 2014".

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Since the donation transaction of this case, including the rolling stock of this case and the construction project management service of this case, constitutes urban railway construction service directly supplied to the local government under Article 105 (1) 3 (a) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the donation transaction of this case, including the rolling stock of this case and the construction project management service, shall be subject

Even if the instant rolling stock and the instant construction project management services are not included in the scope of direct urban railroad construction services, this constitutes the supply of incidental or incidental services to urban railroad construction services that are directly supplied to the local government, and thus, the instant rolling stock and the instant construction project management services shall be subject to the zero-rate tax rate identical

Therefore, even though the input tax amount borne by the Plaintiff at the construction stage of the instant business facilities should be deducted, the instant disposition that did not recognize it is unlawful.

2) The defendant's assertion

If the legislative history, legislative purpose, and language of Article 105(1)3-2 and 3(a) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act are systematically interpreted, the issue is only whether Article 105(1)3-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act applies to the case where a project operator under subparagraph 7 of Article 2 of the Act on Private Participation supplies social infrastructure, etc. to a local government in the manner provided for in subparagraph 1 of Article 4 of the same Act, such as the instant donation transaction, and as long as Article 105(1)3-2 of the same Act does not apply, Article 105(1)3(a) of the same Act does not apply to the instant donation transaction. Therefore, since the instant donation transaction

Even if zero tax rate is applied to the donation transaction in this case, Article 6(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 15(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 24638, Jun. 28, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) or Article 6(4) of the same Act can be interpreted as a case where “self-supply of the instant business facilities, etc. to the Plaintiff” is applied. As such, the pertinent disposition is legitimate in that the input tax amount that is deducted after applying zero tax rate.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether Article 105(1)3(a) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is applied

A) Article 105(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "in the case of value-added tax on the supply of goods or services falling under any of the following subparagraphs, zero tax rates shall apply, as prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 105(1) of the same Act provides that "urban railway construction services directly supplied to the State or a local government" in subparagraph 3 (a) and Article 2 subparagraph 3-2 of the former Urban Railroad Act provides that "construction services for infrastructure facilities or infrastructure facilities under the provisions of subparagraphs 1 through 3 of Article 4 of the same Act that are supplied to the State or a local government by a project operator under subparagraph 7 of Article 2 of the Private Investment Act for the purpose of carrying on a business on which value-added tax is levied." Meanwhile, the former Public-Private Partnerships Act (amended by Act No. 1263, May 21, 2014) provides that "urban railroads under subparagraph 1 (c) of Article 3 of the Urban Railroad Act (wholly amended by Act No. 12216, Jan. 7, 2014>

B) When the former Act on the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption (amended by Act No. 3196 of Dec. 28, 1979) (amended by Act No. 3167 of Apr. 17, 1979) (amended by Act No. 3167 of Apr. 17, 1979) was implemented, the provisions of the zero tax rate were newly established to apply the zero tax rate to the value-added tax on the " subway construction services directly supplied to the State or local governments" in Article 11-2 (1) 3 to promote the participation of private enterprises through taxation support for the construction of subway roads, and there were several revisions thereafter, but Article 105 (1) 3 (a) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 3196 of Dec. 28, 1979) has continued to apply the zero tax rate to the urban railroad construction services directly supplied to the State and local governments.

1) After December 28, 1998, the law was completely amended by Act No. 5584 on Dec. 28, 1998, and the law was changed to "Special Taxation Act".

2) Since May 12, 1986, as the Act was amended by Act No. 3846 on May 12, 1986, the name of the law was changed from the subway to the "Act on the Construction and Operation of subways", and the name of the railroad was changed to the "Urban Railroad Act" as it was amended by Act No. 4308 on December 31, 1990.

C) Meanwhile, the former Regulation on Tax Reduction and Exemption (amended by Act No. 5402 of Aug. 30, 1997) newly established a provision that the value-added tax shall be exempted for the supply of goods or services, which belong to the State or a local government under Article 100 (1) 7 of the Act on the Promotion of Private Capital Inducement for Infrastructure under Article 22 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation (amended by Presidential Decree No. 6054 of Dec. 28, 199) separately from the provision that applies the zero-rate tax rate to the value-added tax to the urban infrastructure construction services directly supplied to the State or a local government for the purpose of expanding the infrastructure, and Article 4 (1) 1 or 2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 6054 of Dec. 28, 199) newly amended by Article 22 of the same Act (amended by Act No. 1715, Dec. 30, 201>

D) According to the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s transaction of donation in this case is a case where the Plaintiff directly supplies urban railway construction services or goods, etc. incidental thereto to the local government, and the zero-rate tax rate is applied pursuant to Article 105(1)3(a) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, even if Article 105(1)3-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act cannot be applied to the donation transaction in this case, it is without any grounds for not applying Article 105(1)3(a) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit.

3) After December 31, 1998, the law was amended by Act No. 5624 on December 31, 1998, and the law was amended by Act No. 7386 on January 27, 2005, and the legal name was changed from "public-private partnership on infrastructure" to "public-private partnership on infrastructure".

(1) Under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the law, barring any special circumstance, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du9537, Jan. 24, 2003). Article 105(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that “the supply of goods or services falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be subject to zero tax rates, and does not provide for the order of application or special exclusion among the subparagraphs. Thus, the interpretation that only subparagraph 3-2 shall apply or subparagraph 3 (a) shall not apply solely on the ground that the urban railroad-related facilities, such as the instant business facilities, fall under infrastructure without explicit grounds, would go beyond the language and text.

(2) Article 105(1)3 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides for inducing private participation through broad tax support for the purpose of facilitating the construction of urban railroads with high public nature among social infrastructure, in order to facilitate smooth traffic flow in urban areas. Article 105(1)3 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides for tax support not only for urban railroads but also for the purpose of facilitating investment by the private sector in various infrastructure facilities, and thus, the legislative purpose, object of supply, and scope of application are different. Thus, overlapping application cannot be deemed impossible.

(3) In addition, since the issue of whether to apply zero-rate tax rates for donated business, whether to grant tax exemption, or whether to grant tax exemption or tax exemption for business conducted after donated business is not logical and inevitable, it should be decided in the decision of policy. Thus, even if the Plaintiff acquired management and operation rights from OOO to operate passenger transportation business after the donation transaction in this case, unless there is any express provision that restricts whether the Plaintiff is a taxable business or not of the business conducted after donated business, there is no ground to interpret Article 105(1)3 (a) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act as not

(4) The Plaintiff entered into a AAA private investment agreement with the Plaintiff to vest its ownership at OO upon completion of the instant project by the method of subparagraph 1 of Article 4 of theO and the Act on Private Participation, and to vest the ownership of the instant project facilities at OO through the instant donation transaction under the said concession agreement as seen earlier. In full view of the contents of the said concession agreement and the developments leading up to the instant donation transaction, the Plaintiff, a project developer, should be deemed to have supplied the “urban Railroad Construction Services” directly to OO, a local government, after receiving the instant construction project management services and the instant rolling stock goods and services from individual companies.

(5) Even if the construction project management service of this case and the rolling stock of this case are not itself, they are essential services and goods for urban railroad construction services. Thus, the 'goods or services that are generally deemed to be incidental to the supply of urban railroad construction services' under Article 3 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and thus, they should be subject to zero-rate tax rate under Article 105 (1) 3 (a) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

4) The Ministry of Strategy and Finance also made inquiries to the same effect in cases similar to the instant case [the Ministry of Strategy and Finance system and-892 ( December 31, 2010)]

2) Whether Article 6(2) and (4) of the former Value-Added Tax Act is applicable

A) Article 6(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that "if a business operator directly uses or consumes goods produced or acquired in connection with his/her own business for the purpose of his/her own business, those prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be deemed the supply of goods." Article 15(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "goods used or consumed for a business that supplies goods or services exempt from value-added tax are deemed the supply of goods." Meanwhile, Article 6(4) of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that "if a business operator closes his/her business, any remaining goods shall be deemed the supply of goods to him

B) As to the application of Article 6(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act and Article 15(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Health Center, and the Plaintiff’s provision of urban railroad construction services through donation transaction of this case, thereby acquiring the ownership of business facilities of this case and the Plaintiff’s acquisition of management and operation rights from OOO. As seen earlier. Thus, goods acquired by the Plaintiff through donation transaction of this case, which is its own business, are not management and operation rights of this case, and the goods acquired by OO, other than the Plaintiff, can not be deemed as goods acquired by the Plaintiff for the supply of passenger transport services, which are duty-free business, and the Plaintiff may not be deemed to be directly used or consumed by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the instant business facilities are deemed as goods subject to value-added tax under Article 6(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act and Article 15(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree

C) As seen earlier, as to whether Article 6(4) of the former Value-Added Tax Act applies, the Plaintiff’s establishment for the purpose of “construction, management, and operation of the AAA business facilities.” Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s operation of the business of supplying passenger transport services by acquiring the right to manage and operate the instant business facilities from OOO. Even if the Plaintiff appears to have changed the type of the business of supplying passenger transport services from the donated business such as the instant donation transaction, it is clear that Article 6(4) of the former Value-Added Tax Act is not applicable to the case where the Plaintiff changed the type of the business of supplying passenger transport services from the donated business such as the instant donation transaction. However, it is apparent that Article 6(4) of the former Value-Added Tax Act is not applicable to the case where the Plaintiff changed the type of business of the former business under Article 6-0-1 subparag. 1 of the former General Rule (amended by December 30, 2014).

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s transaction of donation in this case constitutes “urban railway construction services directly supplied to a local government” under Article 105(1)3 (a) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and thus, the input tax amount of this case should be deducted. Since the Plaintiff’s transaction of donation in this case cannot be deemed as a case of deemed as a supply of goods pursuant to Article 6(2) and (4) of the former Value-Added Tax Act, the disposition of this case rejecting the instant

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so it is revoked and it is decided as per Disposition by the decision to accept the plaintiff's claim.