부가가치세경정거부처분취소
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The main sentence of Article 13(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013) provides that “The tax base for value-added tax on the supply of goods or services shall be the sum of the following values” and subparagraph 1 of Article 13 provides that “where the price is paid in money: The price shall be paid in money:
In addition, Article 48(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 24638, Jun. 28, 2013) provides that “The tax base stipulated in Article 13(1) of the Act includes all monetary values having a quid pro quo relationship, regardless of the pretext thereof, such as money, fees, fees, and any other monetary values received from a trader
Therefore, even in the case of public utility charges, such as electricity and gas charges, if it is determined whether it is included in the tax base of value-added tax depending on whether it is a quid pro quo relationship with the supply of goods or services, and if it is merely a mere fact that a supplier of goods or services receives and pays the public utility charges imposed on behalf of the other party for convenience separately from the price for the supply of goods or services, it cannot be deemed that
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Du9778 Decided September 6, 2007). 2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts. A.
The plaintiff is a business operator engaged in building management business in the trade name of "C".
On August 23, 2007, the Plaintiff entrusted the management of the above building from B (hereinafter “B”) and “the Plaintiff is entitled to receive KRW 19 million per month (excluding value-added tax) in return for the entrusted management of the building from B (hereinafter “B”) which was newly constructed by the Plaintiff.” The instant service contract and “B” with the content that the Plaintiff paid the electricity fee (including value-added tax) of the above building that the Plaintiff paid on behalf of the Plaintiff.