부가가치세부과처분취소
1. On November 3, 2014, the Defendant’s value-added tax for the second term of 20,684,450 won for the Plaintiff and the first term of 2011 for the second term of 2010.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On May 22, 2007, the Plaintiff constructed school facilities at its own expense with the Busan Metropolitan Office of Education, and reverted the ownership to the competent authority. However, the Plaintiff entered into a concession agreement for public-private partnership projects under the Act on Public-Private Partnerships in Infrastructure (hereinafter “instant concession agreement”) with the competent authority to receive rents and operating expenses, while managing and operating the said facilities.
B. By February 2, 2009, the Plaintiff newly constructed a camping school, the highest elementary school, the same central elementary school, the hot spring elementary school, the shipping substitute elementary school, etc. (hereinafter “instant facilities”), and provided them to each competent authority (a camping school, the amount of the elementary school, the same central elementary school: Busan District Office of Education, the Busan District Office of Education, the Hot Spring Office of Education, and the Maritime Aviation Office: Maritime Transportation Office).
C. On November 3, 2014, the Defendant: (a) filed a report on the supply price of real estate with respect to government payments (rents and operating expenses) received from the competent authority during the second period from 2010 to 2013; and (b) filed a report on the supply price of real estate on November 3, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not submit the specifications of the supply price of real estate; (c) KRW 20,684,450 for the second period from 2010 to 21,064,050 for the first period from 2011; (d) KRW 21,064,050 for the second period from 2064,050 for the first period from 2012; and (e) KRW 21,064,050 for the second period from 2012 to 21,064,050 for the second period from 2013; and (e) KRW 383638,30138
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiff requested the Tax Tribunal for a trial on February 9, 2015, but the said request was dismissed on March 31, 2015.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 13, Eul evidence 1 (including each number in the case of additional evidence) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion is based on the concession agreement of this case.