낚시어선업은 부가가치세 과세대상의 용역의 공급에 해당함[국승]
Daejeon High Court 2010Nu1444 ( October 21, 2010)
early 2009 prior 0446
The fishing vessel business shall constitute the supply of services subject to value-added tax.
The fishing vessel business falls under the supply of services by providing services or using goods and facilities under a contract with passengers for fishing, and the fishing vessel business is subject to value-added tax, such as not separately provided for in statutes.
2010Du26025 Disposition revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax
○ ○
○ Head of tax office
Daejeon High Court Decision 2010Nu1444 Decided October 21, 2010
April 28, 2011
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. The lower court cited the judgment of the first instance court. ① The Plaintiff engaged in the fishery by obtaining permission from the head of △△△△△ on July 21, 2004. On January 20, 2005, the Plaintiff registered the business with the retail and fishing time which is value-added tax-free type on July 16, 2007. From around 2006, the Plaintiff reported the total number of fishing vessels owned by 4 to 0 days, including one fishing vessel under his/her spouse’s name, one fishing vessel under his/her name, one fishing vessel under his/her spouse’s name, and one fishing vessel under his/her name. The Plaintiff reported to the Plaintiff 20 years of entry and departure from the 20-year fishing port to 10-year fishing vessel business, and the Plaintiff reported to the 20-year fishing vessel business under his/her jurisdiction for entry and departure from the 20-year fishing port to the 20-year fishing vessel business.
2. Based on the above facts, the lower court determined that: (a) Article 7(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010) comprehensively provides that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the fishing vessel business is not subject to value-added tax; (b) provides that the Plaintiff’s provision of services or use of goods, facilities or rights shall be subject to value-added tax; (c) Article 12 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8826, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same) provides that the Plaintiff’s exemption of value-added tax shall be limited only to the supply of specific goods or services and imports of specific goods; (d) the fishing vessel business under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that a person who intends to capture and gather marine animals and plants on board a fishing vessel and provides information on the fishing place of river, lake, or sea; and (d) the Plaintiff’s provision of the fishing vessel business and passenger goods to be exempt from value-added tax.
Furthermore, the lower court rejected all the Plaintiff’s assertion that the imposition of the value-added tax of this case against the Plaintiff violates the good faith principle, etc., and that the Plaintiff’s amount of revenue is calculated based on data that did not reflect the factual basis as it is, and that the said imposition violates the underlying taxation or the principle of substantial taxation, and that the imposition of
3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the object of value-added tax, the good faith
4. 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 on the bench.