Construction works of signal apparatus shall be performed outside a national housing complex with construction works of traffic safety facilities.

service is naturally accompanied by the housing construction service.

Therefore, this case’s signal apparatus construction services are value added tax under the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

Since the instant disposition is not subject to exemption, it is legitimate.

In addition, the Corporation and AA Construction Corporation shall have the total supply area for the housing complex of this case.

value-added tax shall be exempted on the value of supply corresponding to the ratio of the national housing area.

The contract was concluded with the view that the supply is equivalent to the ratio of the area of national housing.

the Corporation outside a national housing complex shall be deemed to be exempted from value, and the Corporation shall be entitled to such exemption.

Seoul, which seems not to have been said to be the guidance when the 0000 Corporation enters into a contract for work.

Value-added tax is levied on the improvement plan for calculating value-added tax on construction services of the Special Metropolitan City.

Construction services for national housing subject to exemption shall be construction of housing sites and appurtenant facilities to national housing;

Housing sites not more than road, park, green area, river, and development cost among the housing site development cost;

Part for construction services for the creation of housing sites among the relevant services for free supply area;

Since it is subject to exemption from the value tax, the Corporation outside the national housing complex is for the creation of housing sites.

As construction services cannot be seen as being exempt from value added tax, the Plaintiff is not included in the subject of value added tax exemption.

The taxpayer confirms that the instant signal apparatus is eligible for value-added tax exemption;

corporation of this case shall have determined whether or not to report, and the Corporation shall

Since the construction of traffic safety facilities was conducted on a rightway, the Plaintiff was outside a national housing complex.

It seems that the AA Construction Corporation was aware that the AA Construction Corporation was a corporation, and the AA Construction Corporation was exempt from value added tax.

It seems that the contract under the premise is not clearly trusted and the scope of the exemption is not confirmed.

(C) Value-added tax is reported and paid because the contract for AA Construction Corporation was trusted.

It is difficult to view that the reason why the penalty was not imposed is a justifiable reason. Therefore, it is difficult to deem it as a justifiable reason.

The instant disposition imposing penalty tax is also lawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On January 9, 2015, the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 for the first term portion (including additional tax of KRW 000) in 201 and KRW 000 for the second term portion (including additional tax of KRW 000) imposed on the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

The plaintiff completed the construction work of traffic signal apparatus (hereinafter referred to as the "signal") related to the construction work of a national rental housing complex (hereinafter referred to as the "housing complex of this case") from AA General Construction Co., Ltd. by subcontracting the construction work of this case, and reported the construction work of this case to be exempted from value-added tax by viewing it as national housing construction service.

On January 9, 2015, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of value-added tax of KRW 000 for the first term portion (including additional tax of KRW 000) and KRW 000 for the second term portion (including additional tax of KRW 000) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant signal apparatus construction does not constitute national housing construction services (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

Article 106(1)4 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11133, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter the same) and Article 106(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590, Feb. 2, 2012; hereinafter the same) provide that construction of national housing and its housing below the scale of national housing under the Housing Act (title 1), "national housing less than the scale of national housing", "construction of housing below the scale of national housing" under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Electrical Construction Business Act, Fire-Fighting Business Act, Information and Communication Business Act, Housing Act, Housing Act, and Livestock Excreta Act, which ordinarily provide housing below the scale of national housing, and a person who ordinarily registers or reports construction of national housing under the Certified Architects Act, Electric Technology Management Act, Fire-Fighting System Installation Business Act, Professional Engineers Act, and Engineering Industry Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2427, Mar. 16, 2017, 2013).

However, in addition to the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the Corporation was designated as the project implementer for the housing complex development project of this case on Nov. 13, 2006, and entered into a contract for construction of the housing complex of this case (in addition to the price of value-added tax imposed on Feb. 18, 2010, land, road, packing hole, wastewater, water supply system, structure construction, unit construction, bypassway road construction) with A General Construction Corporation of this case on Feb. 18, 2010. ② The housing complex of this case includes a national housing defined in subparagraph 3 of Article 2 of the Housing Act (house with exclusive residential area of 1 or 85 square meters per household). ③ The housing complex of this case includes a national housing defined in subparagraph 3 of Article 2 of the Housing Act (house with exclusive residential area of 1 or 85 square meters per household), ③ the supply price equivalent to the ratio of national housing area to the total supply price under the Value-Added Tax Act.

The Corporation is not a supply by itself or a related construction service, and the Corporation is not a national housing

Judges Kim Young-young

Judges Maap-man