부가가치세부과처분취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Defendant’s value-added tax for the first term of May 18, 2015 against the Plaintiff on May 18, 2015 540.
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are the same as the reasons stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The gist of the Plaintiff Company’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff Company set the construction cost for the entire power generation facilities of the instant case, and did not set the construction cost for each power generation facilities. The former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26983, Feb. 17, 2016; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act”).
(2) Article 29(2)1 of the Act provides that “Where the time the provision of service is completed or the time the payment is to be made is not deemed the time of supply for the service, the time the provision of service is completed and the supply price is determined.” Accordingly, in the case of the instant contract, the time the provision of service is determined and the supply price is determined is the time of supply for the service. However, even though the supply price for each of the instant power generation facilities is not determined, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful on the ground that “the amount arbitrarily distributed the total supply price for each of the instant power generation facilities” was determined as the supply price for each of the instant power generation facilities, the “amount arbitrarily distributed the total supply price for each of the instant power generation facilities” is determined as the supply price for each of the instant power generation facilities. (2) In the case of the solar power generation facilities for preliminary claim, not only the pre-use inspection under the Electric Utility Act, but also the New and
Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case based on the premise that the provision of services has been completed when receiving a pre-use inspection is illegal, even though the provision of services was completed when each of the power generation facilities of this case received a pre-use inspection.
(b) annex relevant laws and regulations;