Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value Added Tax Act

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

A. On October 21, 2008, the Plaintiff was established to engage in solar power generation, real estate consulting, and entered into a service contract (hereinafter referred to as the “instant service contract”) with the operator of Gangseo-do (the name of the building office) on October 24, 2008, with respect to the establishment of Class II district unit planning, environmental, traffic and disaster assessment, land suitability assessment, forest land suitability assessment, forest land-scale survey, status survey, etc. in order to promote ' XX' in the xiet of 108-25 and 166 lots (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) in the xiet of Gonam-gun, Gonam-gun, Gonam-gun, Yan-gun, 100 won in the service cost (hereinafter referred to as “instant service contract”).

B. Under the instant service contract, the Plaintiff filed a return on the second term portion of 2008 and the first term portion of 2000 won (hereinafter “instant service charges”) with respect to the service charges paid to Gangwon and 000 won (hereinafter “instant service charges”). On October 25, 2010, the Defendant did not recognize the Plaintiff’s deduction of the input tax amount on the ground that the instant service charges constitute the pre-evaluation service charges to acquire the instant land, and accordingly, revised and notified the value-added tax for the second term portion of 2008 (including the additional tax of 00 won) as the additional tax for the first term portion of 2009 (including 00 won) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On March 8, 2011, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on June 23, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Since the instant service cost was paid by the Plaintiff in the course of promoting LOA in the name of OOA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “OA”), it constitutes an amount of tax for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for the Plaintiff’s business, which constitutes the subject of input tax deduction.

2) The Plaintiff entered into the instant service contract with the Gangwon-A with respect to the formulation of Class 2 district unit planning for the Liet Project, and paid the instant service cost, not with the cost of pre-assessment for acquiring the instant land.

3) Furthermore, even if the service cost of this case is in the nature of capital expenditure under Articles 17(1) and 17(2)4 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) and Article 60(6)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same), the capital expenditure for the creation, etc. of land refers to the capital expenditure performed by the business owner, who is the owner of the land, for the creation, etc. of the land. The Plaintiff did not acquire the ownership of the land of this case, and thus, the disposition of this case was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On October 24, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into the instant service contract with Gangwon, and the main contents thereof are as follows.

O Services Name: XXLLT Class 2 district unit planning services

O Location: The 200 won (excluding value-added tax) O contract amount of 108-25 O contract amount in the east-gun of Hong-gun Do.

(1) Establishment of Class 2 district unit planning

(2) Environmental, traffic, and disaster reviews, landscape reviews, and land suitability assessment;

(3) Inspection of forest trees, inspection of cultural heritage indices, and inspection of current status of cultural heritage;

O Service Period: until the completion of a district unit planning

O Payment

2) On December 12, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into an investment agreement for eco-friendly and health recreation complex creation on the instant land under the name of the OM (the representative KimB, the representative director of the Plaintiff, and the same person as the Plaintiff’s representative director).

3) On February 5, 2010, the former Do Governor issued a public notice of the modification of a plan to alter a special-purpose area and determine a Class II district unit planning zone (No. 2010-38 of the former Do public notice), and the main contents thereof are as follows:

(Contents) The following:

4) Meanwhile, in accordance with the instant service contract, the Plaintiff paid to Gangseo KRW 000 in total the down payment and the first intermediate payment in 2008, and KRW 000 in the second intermediate payment in around 2009.

5) After that, on January 19, 2012, Goi-gun changed the entity in charge of the XXL project from O trade to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 2, 3, and 4, fact inquiry results of this court's high interest and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether the instant service cost is expenditure for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for the Plaintiff’s business

In light of the following circumstances that can see the purport of the entire argument in the above facts, that is, the instant service contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the GangnamA, and the expenses incurred by the Plaintiff are deemed to have been incurred, and the resort business that was conducted in the name of O trade was changed on January 19, 2012 by the supervising company to the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff promoted the resort business in the name of O trade. As such, the instant service fee is deemed to be an expenditure for the supply of goods or services that were used or to be used for the Plaintiff’s resort business.

2) Whether the instant service cost constitutes a pre-assessment service cost for acquiring the instant land, and whether the instant service cost constitutes capital expenditure as a land-related input tax amount

A) The purport of Article 17(1) and (2)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 60(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which excludes the input tax amount related to land, is that since the land is exempt goods under the Value-Added Tax Act, and the supply of the land itself does not take place, it is reasonable not to deduct the relevant input tax amount. In general, in light of the fact that capital expenses for the creation, etc. of the land are recovered by adding to the acquisition value in calculating gains from transfer when the land is transferred, the "capital expenses for the creation, etc. of the land" under Article 60(6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act is the cost required for the actual increase of the value of the land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du15290, Nov. 12, 199; 2004Du13844, Jul. 28, 2006). 207.

B) As to the instant case, the following circumstances revealing the purport of the entire pleading in light of the facts found earlier, namely, ① the Plaintiff is designated as a district unit planning zone under Article 51 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) to promote the instant land. At the time of entering into the instant service agreement, the Plaintiff proposed to establish a Class II district unit planning plan to promote the instant land in the name of OO trade, pursuant to Article 26(1)2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and in the process, it appears that the instant service contract was concluded, and ② the content of the instant service contract appears to be for the establishment of the Class II district unit planning plan and the proposal of the district unit planning plan, such as the establishment of the Class II district unit planning plan, the environment, traffic, landscape, etc.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

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