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

Cheong-gu Office

Order.1)

A. The former Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs ("former Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Ministry of Land, and Maritime Affairs, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs ("the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Ministry of Land, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs), enacted the Guidelines for the Management of Dredging Land in the fourth River in the fourth River (the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Ministry of Land, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Ministry of Land, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, on June 30, 209, established the dredging project in relation to approximately 5.7 billion cubic meters of the dredging project (hereinafter referred to as the "the project in this case").

B. In accordance with the instant guidelines, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Korea Water Resources Corporation (Korea Water Resources Corporation 3, 4, and 6 sections) on the disposal of dredging soil (a project site) generated from Han River 2 through 6 sections among the instant project sections (hereinafter “the instant agreement”) on January 29, 2010, and on February 1, 2010, ○○do (2, 5 sections) and each aggregate treatment agreement (hereinafter “the instant agreement”).

C. According to Article 5 of the instant Convention, the Korea Water Resources Corporation (the obligation under the instant Convention was transferred to ○○○ Regional Land Management Office under the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport) and ○○do determined that: (a) are responsible for the transportation of dredging soils from each construction section to the storage thereof (Paragraph (1); (b) the Plaintiff is responsible for all affairs arising after the dredging soil has been transported (Paragraph (2); (c) the scope of the designation of the storage yard (including authorization, lease, or purchase); (d) the management and operation of the storage (including restoration work for 00 Dos); (c) the management of the storage yard (including restoration work for 00 Dos); and (d) the management of the dredging remaining soil (including removal work for 00 Dos); and (d) the management of the dredging remaining soil (such as disposal of aggregate); and (e) the management of aggregate proceeds (such as installation of a special account).

D. According to the instant agreement, the ○○ Office affiliated with the Plaintiff was transferred by the Korea Water Resources Corporation and the ○○○○ from the first half to the first half of the year 2016 to the first half of the year 2016, and was in custody of the dredging soil in the storage area in the relevant area, and sold it to third parties, such as AA, etc. without going through separate processing, such as screening and crushing work, at the selling price of KRW 00 (00) (hereinafter referred to as “the dredging soil sold as above,” and each of the above transactions is referred to as “each of the instant transactions”).

E. As a result of the Plaintiff’s comprehensive audit from June 7, 2016 to June 24, 2016, the ○○ regional tax office issued an instruction to impose value-added tax and additional tax on the Defendant on the ground that each of the instant transactions constitutes a wholesale business subject to value-added tax, and the Plaintiff did not issue a sales tax invoice and did not file a value-added tax return on the sales amount.

F. Accordingly, on October 16, 2017, pursuant to Article 26(1)19 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 46 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing each value-added tax (including the additional tax) on the Plaintiff by revising and notifying each of the value-added tax and the additional tax for the second period from 2015 to 2016, as stated in the separate disposition list in attached Table 1.

G. On December 22, 2017, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with each of the dispositions of this case, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap's evidence 1 through 4, Gap's evidence 25, Eul's evidence 1 (including various numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 2 shall be as shown in attached Table 2.

3. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

Since the Defendant filed the instant lawsuit without going through the pre-trial procedure, the instant lawsuit is unlawful, and the instant lawsuit is deemed unlawful.

If the other party to the disposition fails to receive a decision on the request within 90 days from the date of filing the request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal, he/she may file an administrative litigation lawfully after the lapse of 90 days from the date of filing the request for a trial even before receiving a notice of the decision following the above request for a trial (proviso of Article 56 (3), Articles 65 (2) and 81 of the Framework Act on National Taxes), and whether the requirements for a lawsuit are satisfied shall be determined at the time of closing the arguments,

On December 22, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition. However, the Tax Tribunal did not make a decision on the said appeal by the closing date of argument in the instant case after the lapse of 90 days from the said Tribunal. As such, the instant appeal is lawful pursuant to the proviso to Article 56(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Articles 65(2) and 81 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

Therefore, the defendant's main defense is without merit.

4. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The parties' assertion

The Defendant asserts that each of the dispositions of this case is lawful on the grounds of the disposition and the relevant statutes. The Plaintiff asserted as follows and asserted that each of the dispositions is unlawful.

1) In the first place, each of the instant transactions is: (a) the Plaintiff, who was re-entrusted by the State ○○do or the Korea Water Resources Corporation, takes custody of dredging soil owned by the State; and (b) sold it to a third party; (c) the Plaintiff only sold dredging soil due to the performance of public law obligations, but did not engage in commercial activities; (d) even if the Plaintiff’s delivery of dredging soil from ○○do, etc. can be deemed as consignment by the State; and (e) the Plaintiff did not resell the ownership of the land; and (e) each of the instant transactions does not constitute a wholesale business under the Korean Standard Industrial Classification, and thus, (e) the value-added tax should be exempted.

2) Preliminaryly, even if each of the instant transactions constitutes wholesale business, and thus, is subject to value-added tax, the Defendant did not impose value-added tax on other local governments who sold dredging soil, and each of the instant dispositions was made only after the lapse of seven years from January 2010, when the Plaintiff commenced the sale of dredging soil, and thus, each of the instant dispositions is contrary to non-taxable practices and violates the principle of good faith.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "any person who supplies goods or services independently for business regardless of whether they are for profit," and Article 3 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "any goods or services supplied by the State or a local government and prescribed by the Presidential Decree" shall be exempted from value-added tax, and Article 46 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the goods and services supplied by the State or a local government" shall be excluded from value-added tax exemption.

Meanwhile, Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the classification of the business that supplies goods or services shall, in principle, follow the Korean Standard Industrial Classification as of the start date of the pertinent taxable period publicly notified by the Commissioner of the Statistics Korea. According to the former Korean Standard Industrial Classification (amended by the Statistics Korea Notice No. 2017-13 on January 3, 2017 and enforced on July 1, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply), wholesale business (large Classification G. 46n wholesale and product brokerage items; hereinafter referred to as "G. 46. 46. item") refers to the business that resells them to retailers, industry and commercial users, organizations, institutions, specialized users or other wholesalers without changing new goods or used goods purchased.

2) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, each of the instant transactions cannot be deemed to constitute a wholesale business under the former Korean Standard Industrial Classification, and thus, value-added tax shall be exempted pursuant to Article 26(1)19 of the Value-Added Tax Act as to each of the instant transactions, on the following grounds: (a) evidence Nos. 8, 11 through 15, 18 through 21, 18 through 21, 27, 29, and 30 (including the number number of each of the instant transactions); and (b) evidence Nos. 26(1)19 of the Value-Added Tax Act as to each of the instant transactions.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's primary assertion pointing this out is with merit, each disposition of the case on a different premise is unlawful (as long as the plaintiff's primary assertion is accepted, no further determination is made as to the plaintiff's preliminary assertion).

① The dredging soil of this case is an by-products generated in the course of executing the project of Articles 2 through 6 tools among the instant projects, which have the nature of river work under Article 27 of the River Act, and the instant guideline or the instant agreement only determines the specific procedures and methods for handling the dredging soil of this case as it falls under the objects of national rivers (Article 5(1)1 of the State Property Act) or the goods under Article 2 of the Commodity Management Act.

The Plaintiff, pursuant to the instant agreement, only sold the dredging soil of this case, which was transported by ○○do or the Korea Water Resources Corporation to the storage yard in the Plaintiff’s region, and stored it in custody. There is no evidence to deem otherwise that the Plaintiff purchased the dredging soil of this case, such as entering into a sales contract with the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport for the dredging soil.

Therefore, even if the plaintiff sold the dredging land of this case to a third party, each transaction of this case does not meet the requirements for wholesale business set forth in the Korea Standard Industrial Classification G. 46.

② According to Article 66 of the River Act and Article 77(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the sales revenue of dredging soil generated from the project of this case, which is a river work, shall be preferentially used for the maintenance and repair of a river and the compensation for incorporated land, and even in cases of excess, it shall be interpreted that it may be used only for the formulation of a river master plan and river works.

The proceeds from the sale of dredging soil carried by the Korea Water Resources Corporation from among the proceeds from the sale of dredging soil in this case shall be the Plaintiff’s revenue with a total of less than 0 billion won. Of the excess of 0 billion won, 1/2 of the revenue from the National Treasury, 1/2 of the excess of 0 billion won shall be the Plaintiff’s revenue, and 1/2 of the proceeds from the sale of dredging soil generated from the sale of dredging soil in Section 2 and Section 5 transported by ○○○, shall be the Plaintiff’s revenue, excluding all expenses incurred in the production and production of dredging soil (maintenance expenses, initial investment expenses, etc.) and 1/2 of the proceeds from the sale of dredging soil shall be treated as the Plaintiff’s revenue

Furthermore, the portion of the proceeds from the sale of the dredging land in this case, which was transferred to the Plaintiff’s revenue, was separately managed as the special account item in accordance with the relevant laws and the instant agreement, and the Plaintiff frequently reported to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport or the competent National Land Management Office the current status of the sale of dredging land, the management of the proceeds, and its expenditure status. Under its approval, it was disbursed for all the expenses for the instant project, such as rent for dredging land storage facilities, farming compensation, management expenses, farmland restoration expenses, expenses for the repair of farmland, expenses

Therefore, as above, only a part of the proceeds from the dredging of this case was transferred to the Plaintiff’s revenue, and the part that was the Plaintiff’s revenue is managed as a special account, and it was used mainly as a financial resource for the business of this case under the control of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, so it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff engaged in each transaction of this case under his own account and responsibility. Thus, the Plaintiff is merely merely a sale of the dredging land of this case owned by the State delegated the appropriate value and sale as a performance of the public law obligations under the relevant statutes and the Convention, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff independently engaged in each transaction of this case.

③ Meanwhile, in relation to the definition of wholesale business according to the former Korean Standard Industrial Classification, the circumstance is acknowledged that the defendant's act of selling aggregate business operators after delivering dredging soil collected to the Commissioner of the Statistics Korea on October 20, 2015 falls under any item of the Korean Standard Industrial Classification. Accordingly, the Commissioner of the Statistics Korea sent a reply to the effect that "the mere sale of dredging soil is classified as aggregate, bricks and cement wholesale business without screening and crushing process on November 9, 2015."

However, since "46612" item in the above reply is sub-items 2 of the Korea Standard Industrial Classification G. 46.12, which is a sub-items of the above reply, it is merely subdivided into the transaction subject or the transaction type on the premise that the condition of "purchase of goods" and "resale", which are the requirements for wholesale business set forth in sub-items 46.2 of the above reply, is satisfied. Therefore, each of the above transactions does not constitute wholesale business.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation on the ground that each of the dispositions of this case is illegal is justified, and therefore, it is accepted.

1) The imposition of each value-added tax stated in the attached disposition list No. 1 was notified to the other party of the ○○ Office under the Plaintiff’s control, but the taxpayer is the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff’s purport of the disposition is the same.