[부가가치세등부과처분취소][하집1992(1),582]
Whether an input tax amount for the portion reverted to the State and a local government among the reclaimed land of public waters may be deducted (affirmative)
The reversion of part of reclaimed land to the State and local governments by reclamation of public waters is limited to the provisions of Article 14(2) of the Public Waters Reclamation Act, and since the State and local governments do not receive a supply from the reclamation licensee, it is not possible to apply Articles 12(1)12 or 18 and 17(2)4 of the Value-Added Tax Act to this connection. Rather, the reclamation licensee spent expenses for the entire reclaimed land as part of his own project to acquire the remainder excluding the part reverted to the State and local governments. As such, the reclamation licensee is in a quid pro quo relationship with the part of reclaimed land acquired by him as part of his own project to acquire the remainder excluding the part reverted to the State and local governments. Thus, an input tax amount for the total reclaimed expenses
Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 12 of the same Act, Article 14 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act
Jinho only
Head of Seogsan Tax Office
The defendant's imposition of 14,043,670 won of value-added tax for the second term of 1988 against the plaintiff on September 4, 1990, 32,250,70 won of value-added tax for the first term of 1989, and 22,912,170 won of value-added tax for the second term of 198, and 11,285,122 won of value-added tax for the second term of 199, shall be revoked, respectively.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
The same shall apply to the order.
1. On November 23, 1984, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained a reclamation license from the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries for the public waters of 84,949.39 square meters in Seo-gu, Seo-gu; (b) on October 8, 198, the Plaintiff performed the reclamation work by contracting the construction cost of 5,60,000,00 won to the Samsung General Construction Co., Ltd.; (c) on February 1, 198, the Plaintiff reported the deduction of the input tax amount related to the above reclamation work from February 1, 198 to February 2, 198; (d) on November 23, 1984, the Plaintiff reported the deduction of the input tax amount of 200,000 won in accordance with the above reclamation work; and (e) on September 1, 198, the Plaintiff reported the deduction of the input tax amount of 20,000 won in accordance with the above reclamation work; and (e) on September 3, 9, 197, of Busan Special Metropolitan City.
2. According to Article 14 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act, since the reclamation licensee acquires the ownership of reclaimed land equivalent to the project cost required for the reclamation among the rest of reclaimed land except for reclaimed land necessary for public or public use, expenses for the creation of reclaimed land reverted to the State or local government should be deemed to be included in the cost for acquisition of reclaimed land owned by the reclamation licensee, and the creation of reclaimed land which belongs to the State or local government belongs to the reclamation licensee's own business. Accordingly, since the reclamation licensee under Article 17 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act deducts the input tax amount on the whole reclaimed land's cost, the Defendant litigation performer asserts that the above taxation disposition of this case is illegal, since the Plaintiff supplied the part of reclaimed land to the State or Busan Metropolitan City without compensation, this constitutes the acquisition tax deduction related to the cost of reclamation under Article 12 (1) 12 and 18 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 17 (2) 4 of the Value-Added Tax Act.
Therefore, the provisions of Article 14(1) of the Public Waters Reclamation Act provides that the person who has obtained a reclamation license shall be deemed to have acquired the ownership of reclaimed land in the location he wishes at the time of application for the authorization of completion from among reclaimed land except reclaimed land necessary for public or public use on the date of obtaining the authorization of completion under Article 12. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that reclaimed land except for reclaimed land acquired by the reclamation licensee and those necessary for public or public use under the Presidential Decree shall be reverted to the State at the time of the authorization of completion under Article 12, and Article 12(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that its input tax amount shall be exempted for the supply of the goods or services under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and subparagraph 12 of the same Article provides that its input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount for the goods or services supplied by the licensee to the State or the local government association without compensation under Article 17(1) of the Act.
Therefore, it is not possible to apply Article 12(1)12 or 18 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 17(2)4 of the Value-Added Tax Act to the reclaimed land of 21,303.65 square meters which is reverted to the State and Busan Metropolitan City by the reclamation of public waters in this case. The part of the reclaimed land of 21,303.74 square meters which is reverted to the State and Busan Metropolitan City and Busan Metropolitan City by the reclamation of public waters and the part of the reclaimed land of 21,303.65 square meters which is reverted to the State and Busan Metropolitan City and Busan Metropolitan City, and the part of the reclaimed land of 21,303.65 square meters which is the whole reclaimed land of 84,949.39 and the part of the reclaimed land of 21,303.74 square meters which was reverted to the State and Busan Metropolitan City and the expenses of the reclaimed land acquired by the Plaintiff are related to compensation for the part of the reclaimed land.
3. Therefore, since the disposition of this case, which denied the input tax deduction for the part of reclaimed land belonging to the State and Busan Metropolitan City among the entire reclaimed land of this case, is unlawful, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its revocation is with merit, it is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges' Dumen (Presiding Judge)