There is no dispute between the parties as to the following facts concerning the developments leading up to the imposition of value-added tax in this case:

가. 원고는 1989. 5. 10. 소외 미국의 ㅇㅇㅇ, Inc.(이하 소외회사 로 약칭한다)와 고도 하이테크 금속 세라믹코팅 방법에 대한 기술도입계약을 체결한 후 동 외국법인으로부터 금속세라믹코팅의 기법, 비결등의 용역을 제공받고, 그 대가로 1989. 11. 10. 미화 28,000달러(원화 18,891,600원), 1990. 3. 27. 미화 95,000달러(원화 66,898,620원)의 기술사용료를 지급하였다.

B. On July 18, 1981, the Defendant imposed value-added tax on the Plaintiff on the second term portion of the value-added tax in 1989 and the first term portion of the value-added tax in 1990 on the Plaintiff’s imposition of KRW 8,027,830 for the first term portion of the value-added tax in 1990.

2. The legality of a disposition of imposition.

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of the value-added tax of this case is lawful on the ground that the above disposition grounds and the plaintiff's provision of technology by know-how as well as the provision of technology and materials by know-how as well as the provision of technology and materials by know-how is not limited to purely know-how, and that the provision of technology by know-how constitutes the provision of services. The plaintiff asserts that the provision of technology in this case is made by know-how transfer, and its payment constitutes so-called know-how, and this constitutes the supply of services under the Value-Added Tax Act, and thus the defendant's disposition of the value-added tax of this case is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

갑 제5호증의 기재에 나타난 기술도입계약의 전체 내용과 증인 지ㅇㅇ의 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면 다음과 같은 사실이 인정된다.

The Plaintiff entered into a technology introduction agreement by providing so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called No-A-A-A-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-

The price paid by the Plaintiff to the non-party company was all about the provision of technology by the know-how.

C. Determination

The so-called know-how refers to the technical knowledge, experience, or the integration of them that is necessary to prepare a kind of technology, which is helpful to the industrial purpose independently or in combination, and to actually apply it. As such, the provision of technology by know-how shall fall under the services under the Value-Added Tax Act, but shall not be included in the scope of supply of services provided under Article 7 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and therefore, the so-called No know-how, which is the price for using the technology and decision-making, introduced by the method, shall not be subject to value-added tax.

However, according to the above facts, since the plaintiff's receipt of goods from the non-party company is a technology granted by the so-called old-age system, it shall not be included in the scope of supply of services subject to value-added tax, the defendant's disposition of this case, which was conducted through the springing that it is subject to value-added tax, shall be illegal.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation because the disposition of value-added tax in this case is illegal, is justified, and the lawsuit costs are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.