[부가가치세부과처분취소][집39(2)특,424;공1991.6.15,(898),1538]
In the lease and sale of a store by a person who received the right of donation and free use at underground prices, etc., it shall be treated equally monthly by dividing the lease amount received from the lessee by the number of months in the lease period, but the value-added tax on the monthly amount deducted shall be borne by the lessee, if each lessee has agreed with the lessee, whether the monthly amount equivalent to the monthly rent which is deducted from the lease amount is subject to the assessment of value-added tax (affirmative), and whether the latter part of Article 49-2(1) of
In the case of the lease and sale of a store by the agreement that the plaintiff donated underground prices, etc. at the time of donation and free use for 20 years, it is not necessary to refund the rent amount received by the plaintiff from the lessee after the termination of the lease period by dividing it by the number of months for the lease period, and by deducting the rent amount received by the plaintiff from the lessee, but if the contract was concluded that the value-added tax on the amount deducted each month is to be borne by the lessee, the amount equivalent to the monthly rent that the plaintiff, who is the supplier of the above lease service, shall be subject to value-added tax. In this case, there is no room for application of the latter part of Article 49-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, because
Article 13 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 49-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act
Attorney Jeon Jong-gu, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee
Head of Ansan Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu9093 delivered on October 11, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
As legally determined by the court below, if the plaintiff agreed to contribute the underground prices, etc. in advance and use them for twenty years from January 2, 1982 to February 2, 1986, 935 stores have been leased and sold to others, and the lease sale was made between the plaintiff and each lessee, the lease amount that the plaintiff received from the lessee shall be divided into the number of months during the lease period and deducted equally each month, so it is not necessary to return the lease amount after the lease period expires, but if the plaintiff agreed to bear the value-added tax on the monthly amount deducted from the lease amount, the amount equivalent to the monthly rent that the plaintiff who is the supplier of the above lease service shall be subject to value-added tax, and in this case, the amount equivalent to the monthly rent that the plaintiff deducted from the lease amount shall be subject to value-added tax, and since the business owner under Article 47-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Tax Act did not receive the lease deposit, it shall not be subject to the above provision, which provides that the construction expenses equivalent to the lease area shall not be
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, violation of the rules of evidence, or incomplete hearing.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)