2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

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 (hereinafter “instant concession agreement”) under the Act on Public-Private Partnerships in Infrastructure with the content that the Plaintiff would receive rent and operating expenses from the competent authority while managing and operating the said facilities.

B. By February 2009, the Plaintiff newly constructed ○ Elementary School, ○ Elementary School, ○ Elementary School, ○ Elementary School, ○ Elementary School, ○ Elementary School, ○ Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as “instant facilities”) and provided it to each competent authority (○○ Elementary School, ○ Elementary School, ○ Elementary School, ○ Elementary School: ○○ Office of Education, ○ Elementary School: ○○ Office of Education, ○○ Office of Education, and ○ Elementary School: ○ Office of Education).

C. On November 3, 2014, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff on November 3, 2014, the sum of KRW ○○○○○○ upon the second term portion of the year 2010, KRW 10,01, KRW 200 for the second term of the year 2011, KRW 200 for the second term of the year 201, KRW 00 for the second term of the year 201, KRW 00 for the second term of the year 2012, KRW 00 for the second term of the year 2012, KRW 1 for the second term of the year 2012, KRW 00 for the second term of the year 2013, KRW 1 for the first term of the year 2013, and KRW 00 for the second term of the year 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 9, 2015, but the said appeal was filed on March 31, 2015.

was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 13, Eul evidence 1

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings, including branch numbers,

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff provided the competent authority with the instant facilities at its own expense under the instant concession agreement and received the price for such facilities as the rent for facilities. The substance is merely the payment of the price for the provision of facilities in installments. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is a real estate leasing business entity is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings.

① The Plaintiff entered into the instant concession agreement pursuant to subparagraph 2 of Article 4 of the Private Investment Act, and the main contents of the instant concession agreement are as follows.

② From February 2009, the Plaintiff newly constructed the instant facilities pursuant to the instant concession agreement and provided them to the competent authority, and performed the duties of managing and operating the instant facilities. The Plaintiff was paid from the first quarter of 2010 to the competent authority for rent and operating expenses, respectively.

(3) The Plaintiff did not submit a detailed statement of real estate rental price while reporting value-added tax on rents and operating expenses received from the competent authority as income from real estate management business.

2) Determination

According to the above facts, the instant concession agreement is based on the basic structure that the Plaintiff constructed the instant facilities at its own expense to vest in the competent authority. Funds invested by the Plaintiff for the construction of the instant facilities are to be recovered as rents calculated in accordance with the instant concession agreement. There is no separate lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the competent authority, other than the instant concession agreement. Unlike the general lease agreement, the instant lease agreement is calculated in a manner that reflects the business profit rate stipulated in the instant concession agreement on the total private investment cost invested by the Plaintiff, and the agreement was made to pay the Plaintiff’s total private investment cost for 20 years, including the establishment period of the management and operation rights for the Plaintiff. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the instant concession agreement and the private investment law use the term “lease, rent, etc.” which the Plaintiff received from the competent authority as rent, etc. However, it is difficult for the State or the local government to acknowledge the rights to manage and operate the instant facilities for a certain period of time under the premise that it is difficult for the State or the local government to use the facilities in a way that it is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified.