Article 2 (Taxpayer of Value-Added Tax Act)

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a corporate entity established for the purpose of “forestation, forestation, deforestation, landscaping, and control project against forest diseases and pests, etc.” according to the construction contract entered into between Ansan-si and Ansan-si during the taxable period from 2003 to 2006 (hereinafter “instant contract”). A forest tending project during the said period (hereinafter “instant project”).

B. The Plaintiff received each of the following proceeds (income amount) in return for the instant project from Ansan-si:

Considering that the value-added tax is exempted, an invoice under Article 163 of the Income Tax Act is issued and the value-added tax is not reported.

C. However, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant business constituted a taxable object of value-added tax; and (b) deemed that value-added tax was included in each of the above consideration received from Ansan-si, the Plaintiff rendered a disposition imposing a revised notice on June 2, 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by dividing each of the amount of contribution by 1.1 for each of the above taxable periods, by the amount of omission in filing a return on tax base.

D. After that, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on July 17, 2008 regarding the instant disposition, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the said request for examination on October 22, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 30, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1

Items 6 through 6, 2, 3, 4, 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since the instant project is a project that is naturally incidental to the supply of services related to forest products and is exempt from value-added tax, the instant disposition imposing value-added tax on the instant project is unlawful.

(2) The Plaintiff entered into the instant contract on the premise that the instant project constitutes a business subject to value-added tax exemption, and the Defendant also ordered a public opinion that the instant project constitutes a business subject to tax exemption by failing to impose taxes for several years on the instant project. As such, the instant disposition is contrary to the principle of good faith and the principle of protection of trust and trust, and thus, is in violation of the aforementioned principle.

law.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 1 (Taxable Objects)

Article 2 (Taxpayer of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 3 (Taxable Period)

Article 7 (Supply of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 12 (Exemption from Value-Added Tax)

Article 13 (Tax Base of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 14 (Tax Rate of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 15 (Collection of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 3 (Scope of Incidental Goods or Services)

Article 28 (Scope of Unprocessed Food, etc.)

Article 15 (Good Faith and Fidelity of Framework Act on National Taxes)

Article 163 (Preparation, Delivery, etc. of Account Statement)

C. Determination

(1) Whether the instant business is subject to value added tax

(A) Articles 1, 2, and 7 of the Value-Added Tax Act provide that the value-added tax is imposed on the supply transaction of goods or services, and the taxpayer is an independent supplier of goods or services for a business purpose. The supply of services is intended to provide services or use goods, facilities, or rights due to all contractual or legal grounds, and the supply of goods or services, which is the main transaction, is deemed to be included in the supply of goods or services, which is the main transaction. Article 12(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the supply of goods or services is exempt from value-added tax.

(B) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff was a corporate entity that was established for the purpose of forest project, such as afforestation and forestation, and entered into the instant contract for forest tending project between Ansan-si and Ansan-si, which is the place of the order, and then received the price for the instant project, which is the forest business entity, by providing its services and receiving the price from Ansan-si. As such, the instant project is a transaction of supply of services

Only applicable to taxable objects.

In addition, the business of this case is not a transaction of supplying goods, which is forest products, but does not fall under the supply of services essential to supply forest products, and thus, it cannot be deemed a business exempt from value-added tax pursuant to Article 12 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act. Therefore, this part of the plaintiff'

(2) Whether the principle of trust and good faith and the principle of trust protection are violated

The fact that the business of this case was entered into a contract on the premise that it is subject to value-added tax exemption, or that the defendant did not impose tax on the business of this case for several years cannot be deemed to have expressed the opinion that the business of this case constitutes a tax exemption target, and there is no evidence to support that the defendant ordered a public opinion statement that the business of this case constitutes a tax exemption target. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.