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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 on August 11, 2014 by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs on August 11, 2014 shall be revoked.

A. On July 10, 2013, the Plaintiffs deducted KRW 000 of the real estate brokerage commission (value-added tax 000) paid as input tax related to the real estate rental business from the acquisition of the land located in 000, Madong-dong, Seodong-dong (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) and its ground building (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) as input tax amount related to the real estate rental business, and reported and paid the value-added tax for the second period of 2013.

B. On August 11, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of KRW 000 of the value-added tax amount No. 200 in 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff filed an application for deduction, including the purchase related to the instant land, even though the relevant input tax amount (hereinafter “the instant input tax amount”) should not be deducted from the input tax amount, as a purchase related to the instant land.

C. The Plaintiffs appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 22, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim on March 27, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

The brokerage commission of this case is the expenses paid by the Plaintiffs in purchasing the instant real estate in order to operate a real estate rental business, which is a taxable business, and the Plaintiffs used it for the leasing business as they purchased without creating the land, etc., after purchasing the instant real estate. Therefore, the instant input tax amount does not constitute the input tax amount related to capital expenditures related to the creation, etc. of land, and should be deducted from the output tax amount as the input tax amount paid for a taxable

3. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

A. Under Article 38 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12167, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter the same), the current method of imposing value-added tax provides that the total amount of self-production and the purchase added value shall be the value of supply in order to ensure that only an entrepreneur’s self-production added value can be imposed. The basic structure of imposing value-added tax is to deduct the input tax amount paid for the purchase added value from the output tax amount to the output tax amount to the input tax amount to be collected. Article 38 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12167, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter the same) provides that the scope of the input tax amount to be deducted from the output tax amount to the input tax amount to be computed is related to the whole supply or import of goods or services. Article 39(1)7 of the same Act provides that the tax amount to be deducted from the input tax amount to be computed shall not be determined as 980.1.

Next, with respect to the business relevance of the instant brokerage commission, the Plaintiffs’ trade name, △△ building, and the type of business are registered as a real estate rental business, and thereafter reported and paid the value-added tax for lease proceeds from the instant real estate in 2013, and the Plaintiffs purchased the instant real estate and run the rental business without going through a separate land creation. However, even if the land is used for taxable businesses, it cannot be deemed as fixed assets, the instant brokerage commission, which is part of the acquisition cost, cannot be deemed as an added value creation cost. The instant brokerage commission is an incidental cost incurred in the process of acquiring the land rather than an input cost for the supply of goods or services. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the instant brokerage commission constitutes legitimate acquisition cost of the land not a purchase transaction, but a purchase transaction of the land. Since the Plaintiffs’ transfer of the instant land in the future, its transfer value is included in the transfer value as necessary expenses, and it cannot be seen that the Plaintiff’s supply of the instant real estate constitutes a tax-free brokerage commission, regardless of whether the land is used for taxable business, and its own supply of the tax exemption system.

5. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims of this case are without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.