부가가치세경정거부처분취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The reasoning of the judgment of this court which partially accepted the judgment of the court of first instance is "1. Grounds for Disposition" from "2. Grounds for Disposition"
A. The party's assertion, (1) the plaintiff's assertion, (2) the defendant's assertion;
(b) up to the relevant laws and regulations, the first phase of 2-3 under the attached Table 5 of the first instance judgment was not “from the fifth phase.”
up to "The second and third stage projects are in a state in which only a business plan is formulated, and there is still a wholesale and retail business of agricultural and fishery products in the sites for the second and third stage projects.
Article 14 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "At the bottom of Chapter 14, Chapters 6 through 15 and 20 shall be deleted, and " at the bottom of Part 7, 14" shall be added to "after Part 3, 13", and "after the last place," and "after the first instance court's decision, one project for the establishment of a virtual market facility shall set the total expected use area of the project at the plaintiff's own plan and the estimated use area related to the tax-free project, but at the time of drafting the plaintiff's own plan, the two and three scheduled construction areas at the second stage project at the time of approving the second stage project on February 17, 201 and the planned use area at the second stage project at the time of approving the second stage project at the time of approving the plan on February 1, 201 shall not be calculated accurately because the scheduled use area at each stage can not be determined and the reasonable use area at each stage shall not be determined," and each of the relevant reasons for the first instance court's decision shall be stated in Articles 125 through 29 and 16 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Parts different from the judgment of the first instance court;
C. According to Article 17(7) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013) and the main text of Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree thereof (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 24638, Jun. 28, 2013; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”), where an entrepreneur concurrently runs a taxable business and a tax-free business.