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

A. On October 1996, the Plaintiff formed a central distribution complex in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Guro-gu, 1258 and provided management services to each occupant enterprise located in the complex. The Plaintiff entered into an electricity supply contract with the Korea Electric Power Corporation, entered into a contract with the Korea Electric Power Corporation, and received electricity and gas from the said enterprise.

B. The Plaintiff initially reported and paid the value-added tax by deeming the full amount of management expenses, including electricity and gas charges, as the tax base under the Value-Added Tax Act. From February 1997, the management service charges (the fees for the management services provided by the Plaintiff to each occupant enterprise) and the portion of the electricity and gas charges are separated from the former, and reported and paid the value-added tax only for the former, and the latter did not collect value-added tax for the latter, but did not report and pay it.

C. On December 2, 2002, the Defendant imposed on the occupant enterprise the management fee that did not include the value-added tax on the electricity and gas charges from February 1997 to January 2002, the Defendant deemed that it is unreasonable to deduct the total amount of the tax invoices on the electricity and gas charges provided by the Korea Electric Power Corporation or the urban gas business entity from the input tax amount, even though the Plaintiff did not report and pay the value-added tax on the respective charges, deeming that it is unfair to deduct the total amount of the tax invoices on the electricity and gas charges provided by the Korea Electric Power Corporation or the urban gas business entity from the input tax amount. The Defendant corrected and notified the total amount of the value-added tax omitted during the above period including the penalty tax of KRW 1,485,084,980.

D. On March 3, 2003, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above disposition and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on March 3, 2003. On August 25, 2003, the National Tax Tribunal maintained the above disposition itself as lawful, and revoked the portion of penalty tax on the ground that it was unlawful.

E. On November 20, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition disposition of the principal tax of value-added tax as Seoul Administrative Court No. 2003Guhap3533, and the above court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on September 15, 2004 by deeming that the portion of the electricity and gas supply cost used by occupant enterprises is directly related to the Plaintiff’s business, and thus, the input tax amount can be deducted.

F. On January 4, 2005, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Defendant appealed against the above judgment, and maintained the lawsuit only on the value-added tax from February 1997 to January 1, 199, where the exclusion period for imposition determined that there was no high possibility of winning the case, while the Defendant’s appeal against the portion of the appeal filed by the Defendant was dismissed as Seoul High Court 2004Nu21137 on August 12, 2005, and the above judgment became final and conclusive as the Defendant did not appeal.) On January 4, 2005, the Plaintiff allowed the deduction of the input tax on the total amount of electricity and gas charges from February 1, 1999 to January 2, 2002, revoked ex officio the deduction of the input tax amount from the input tax amount for the portion supplied by the Plaintiff to the occupant enterprises, but the exclusion period for imposition was somewhat 20999Nu2137 on the portion of the appeal that the Plaintiff provided to the occupant enterprises.

G. On January 20, 2005, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the notice of imposition of value-added tax from January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2002, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for a pre-assessment review, and on March 11, 2005, the Defendant filed an objection against the disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second period from January 20, 199.

H. On May 2, 2005, the Plaintiff received a decision of dismissal from the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office on May 2, 2005, and on June 17, 2005, the electricity and gas charges that the Plaintiff received from the occupant enterprise had already been included in the value-added tax, and received a decision that the value-added tax should be revised and notified by deeming the amount obtained by deducting the amount equivalent to 10/110 from the above charges as the sales tax base and that the return and the additional payment for arrears will not be imposed

I. According to the purport of the aforementioned pre-assessment review on July 4, 2005, the Defendant issued a notice of correction and notification of value-added tax from January 2000 to January 2002 as shown in the separate sheet of value-added tax. For the second half of 1999, value-added tax was ex officio reduced or corrected as KRW 86,637,181 per share for the same reason.

(j) On August 4, 2005, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal for the revocation of the imposition of value-added tax on the second term of January 4, 2005 and the imposition of value-added tax on the second term of July 4, 2005 from the first term of July 4, 2000 to the first term of January 2002 (hereinafter “each of the above dispositions”). However, the Plaintiff was dismissed on February 13, 2006.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff collects and pays the electricity and gas charges from the occupant company separately from the management service charges, and each of the above charges is merely an integrated payment by the Plaintiff to the Korea Electric Power Corporation or the gas supplier on behalf of the occupant company. Thus, it cannot be viewed as the Plaintiff’s sales under the Value-Added Tax Act.

(2) The Plaintiff trusted the authoritative interpretation of the National Tax Service, which is not subject to the Value-Added Tax Act, and did not collect and pay the value-added tax during that period, but did not regard each of the instant dispositions as omitting sales, thereby violating the principle of trust and good faith and the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Determination on the legality of a taxation requirement

The Plaintiff entered into a contract related to electricity and gas supply with the Korea Electric Power Corporation and the Korea Electric Power Corporation, etc., and received electricity and urban gas from the above business operators after paying fees including value added tax, and collected management fees from the enterprises from the latter part of 1999 to the first half of 2002 from the first half of 199, and the fact that the Plaintiff did not collect value-added tax on the items of electricity charges, cooling and heating expenses, and hot water usage fees (the gas fees seem to have been classified according to the usage of the use), as seen above, did not collect value-added tax on the items of electricity charges, cooling and heating expenses, and the items of usage fees (the gas fees are classified according to the usage of the use of the gas fees). In full view of the purport of the entries and arguments in Gap evidence No. 8, Gap evidence No. 10, and Eul evidence No. 13, the Plaintiff, as a commercial management company in the Central Distribution Complex, can recognize the fact that all of the companies installed exclusive measuring instruments for each type of enterprise and the total amount of electricity usage charges.

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, the plaintiff does not merely conduct the payment business for the electricity and gas rates used by the occupant company, but also has been supplied with electricity and gas again by the urban gas business entity in addition to the lease business operated by it. The total management fees paid by each occupant company to the plaintiff are in a quid pro quo relationship with the whole lease services including the supply business of electricity and gas provided by the plaintiff. As such, as the plaintiff has been accepted in the previous lawsuit, the plaintiff can obtain input tax deduction for the above electricity and water rates, and it is reasonable to collect the value-added tax for the electricity and gas supply services included in the whole service provided by the plaintiff to each occupant company and report and pay the value-added tax.

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case in the same purport is just, and the plaintiff's allegation in this part is without merit.

(2) Determination as to the principle of good faith or the prohibition of retroactive taxation

The tax authority may impose a new tax when it finds any error or omission in the details of the final tax return under Article 21 (1) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act within the exclusion period for national tax imposition. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant expressed his opinion against the plaintiff in relation to each of the dispositions of this case, and did an act contrary to the taxpayer's trust, or changed the interpretation of the tax-related Acts retroactively. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that each of the dispositions of this case violates the principle of trust and good faith or the prohibition of retroactive taxation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List of Value-Added Tax]

Judges Lee Young-young (Presiding Judge)

(1) The Plaintiff asserts that the value-added tax amount for the second period of February 199 is still 209,947,880 won and sought the revocation of the whole amount of the value-added tax. However, when examining each description of the evidence No. 9-1 (Evidence No. 1-1), No. 9-1 (Evidence No. 1-1), No. 9-8, and No. 1-2, it is obvious that the correction was made, and the above assertion appears to be due to an error, and thus, it is not