B. Whether late payment fees for commercial buildings are included in the tax base of value-added tax (negative)

B. If the price is paid in money in relation to the supply of goods or services pursuant to Article 13(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, the price shall be the tax base of value-added tax, and the price shall include all monetary values in a quid pro quo-related relationship, regardless of the other party's pretext, such as charges, fees, or other charges received from the other party under Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, or private sanctions against a failure to pay management fees at the time, which have the nature of a penalty, cannot be deemed as money in a quid pro quo-related relationship with the supply of services, such as

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence cited by the plaintiff on January 18, 1980 that the tenant's general meeting of the commercial building managed by the plaintiff set the management expenses of the commercial building as 37 won per 1 square meter per 1 square meter per 1,00, and that the plaintiff's management affairs were continued until October 31 of the same year until 1981, and the 9 block permitted was decided on the income amount and value-added tax of the management expenses of this case based on the above facts regardless of the actual receipt of the management expenses. In light of the records, the civil judgment or protocol of settlement in the lawsuit resolved disputes concerning legitimate management expenses, so it cannot be said that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 9 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act or Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and it cannot be subject to the revocation of the value-added tax on the ground that the tax was imposed based on the reported corporate income.

With respect to the second ground:

The lower court determined that the late payment charge of the instant management expenses is not subject to value-added tax, because it has the nature of disciplinary action against the non-payment of management expenses.

According to the facts established by the court below, the management expenses of the commercial building of this case were set at 37 won per one day in the 1st day of store formation, and according to Gap evidence 1-1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 (judgment, protocol of settlement) without dispute over the establishment of the management expenses, the late payment charges of 1/10 should be collected in the event of delay in the payment of the management expenses. This is shown as a penalty with the nature of private sanction for non-payment of the management expenses as stated by the court below, which is considered as a penalty for non-payment of the management expenses, if the payment of the management expenses is received in money for the supply of goods or services pursuant to Article 13 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, the compensation shall be the tax base of value-added tax, and it shall include all monetary values in the relation of compensation regardless of the other party's charges, fees, or any other pretext received from the other party under Article 48 (1) of the Enforcement Decree, but the late payment charges with the nature of the above penalty shall not be included in the tax base.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to this purport is just, and there is no reason to criticize the judgment of the court below from the opposite position.

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.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)