Whether early loading and unloading of goods at sea than the agreed period and payment of loading and unloading fees separate from the loading and unloading fees are subject to the assessment of value-added tax.

The loading and unloading of maritime cargo is divided into the loading and unloading of the goods from the ship to the storage place of the goods loaded on the ship. The loading and unloading of the goods between the loading and unloading company and the shipper are divided into the loading and unloading of the goods and the goods for which the loading and unloading of the goods is completed. The loading and unloading contract between the lender and the shipper is concluded on the condition that the loading and unloading contract between the lender is concluded, and the lender pays the loading and unloading of the goods at his own expense, which is not subject to value-added tax, because it does not constitute a quid pro quo relationship. However, when the loading and unloading company takes a consistent work method to promptly locate the goods such as grain, and put the goods into the container, which is the storage place of the land, as the goods for which the loading and unloading of the goods are immediately loaded on the ship, it is difficult to regard the loading and unloading of the goods as the goods for which the loading and unloading of the goods are concluded between the lender and the lender, which is subject to value-added tax.

Articles 1 and 7 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Postal Industry Corporation

Head of Dong Busan District Office

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of value-added tax against the plaintiff on April 19, 1989 KRW 52,058,598 (the value-added tax amount of KRW 4,556,906 for the first period of January, 1984, KRW 13,39,010 for the second period of February, 1984, KRW 4,203,181 for the first period of January, 1985, KRW 2,782,523 for the second period of February, 1985, KRW 5,471,51 for the second period of February, 1986, KRW 3,748,66 for the second period of the same year, KRW 7,409,795 for the first period of January, 1987, KRW 4,856 for the second period of February, 295, KRW 298 for the second period of year, KRW 125,2015 for the second year).

1. From 1984 to 1988, the Plaintiff, who is engaged in the loading and unloading business at the port of Busan, filed a return and paid value-added tax for the total amount of KRW 386,960,838 (hereinafter “the instant payment”) that was paid for early unloading of the goods for loading and unloading prior to the agreed period of loading and unloading and was not subject to value-added tax, and did not report and pay the aforementioned amount. Accordingly, on April 19, 1989, the Defendant calculated the amount of value-added tax corresponding to the amount of value-added tax by adding the instant payment to the tax base of value-added tax originally reported by the Plaintiff, and calculated the amount of value-added tax equivalent thereto by deducting the tax paid by the Plaintiff voluntarily from the total amount of additional return, etc., and imposed value-added tax, such as the statement in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant taxation”). There is no dispute between the parties concerned.

2. As the plaintiff provided loading and unloading services in accordance with the loading and unloading contract concluded with the owner of the vessel and the owner of the vessel, and received early payment of the loading and unloading, the tax disposition imposed on the provision of the above services is legitimate. The plaintiff's attorney concluded a land loading and unloading contract between the owner of the vessel and concluded the loading and unloading contract between the owner of the vessel and concluded the loading and unloading contract and received the loading and unloading charges of this case from the owner of the vessel early completion of the work. The plaintiff's original disposition of loading and unloading charges was generated from early unloading of the vessel, and thus, it cannot be viewed as the reward for services, and thus, it cannot be viewed as the delivery charges of this case. Thus, the plaintiff did not impose value-added tax on the plaintiff as the payment of the loading and unloading charges of this case for the loading and unloading of this case. The plaintiff's attorney did not impose value-added tax on the plaintiff as the payment of the loading and unloading charges of this case for the loading and unloading of this case, which is not subject to imposition of value-added tax.

3. 살피건대, 갑 제1호증의 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 갑 제2호증의 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 갑 제3호증의 1, 2의 각 기재와 증인 이동수의 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면 이 사건 조출료를 발생시킨 원고의 하역작업은 종래 선내에서 인력으로 양곡 등을 용기에 퍼담아 양하기를 이용하여 선 밖으로 옮겨내던 작업방식과는 달리 부두 안벽상에 설치된 흡입식 양하기로 양곡 등을 빨아낸 다음 버ㅋ 엘리베이터(Bucket Elevator)라는 기계를 통하여 원고가 관리하는 싸이로(양곡 등의 보관시설)에 입고하는 식의 기계식 일관작업방식을 취하고 있었으므로 종래의 하역작업보다 상당한 시간의 작업단축이 있게 된 사실, 그러므로 원고는 선주와 하역계약을 체결함은 물론 화주와도 하역계약을 체결하면서 화주와 선주 사이의 용역계약상에 정한 정박기간보다 조기에 하역작업을 완료하여 조출료를 발생케 하였을 때에는 화주가 선주로부터 조출료를 지급받아 그 중 65%는 화주의 차지로 하고 나머지 35%를 원고에게 지급하기로 약정하여 하역작업을 하게 되었는데, 이러한 조출료에 대하여 1983.7.7. 국세청장에게 "부가가치세"의 과세대상이 되는지를 질의하였더니 같은 달 30. 국세청장이 선주와 하역회사 간에는 본서하역에 대한 계약이 체결되어 있고, 화주와 하역회사 간에는 육상하역에 대한 계약이 체결되어 있는 경우, 화주가 하역회사에게 지불하는 조출료는 본선하역에 대한 조출료로 지불하면 대가관계가 아니므로 과세대상이 되지 아니하나 육상하역에 대한 조출료로 지불하면 대가관계가 성립하여 부가가치세의 과세대상이 된다고 하는 회시를 하자, 이에 이 사건 조출료를 부가가치세의 과세대상이 아니라고 단정하고 그에 대한 부가가치세의 신고 및 납부를 하지 아니하였고, 피고도 이를 그대로 받아들여 원고에게 이 사건 조출료에 대한 부가가치세의 납부여부를 거론한 적이 없었던 사실을 인정할 수 있고 달리 반증 없는 바, 위 인정사실에 의하면 위 국세청장의 회시는 해상운송물의 하역작업에 있어서, 화물을 선박으로부터 실어내는 본선하역부분과 본선하역이 끝난 화물을 보관장소까지 운송하는 육상하역부분으로 구분될 수 있고, 또한 하역업자와 선주와의 사이에는 본선하역계약이, 화주와의 사이에서는 육상하역계약이 각 체결되어 있는 것을 전제로 하여 화주가 자기 비용으로 하역업자에게 본선하역의 조출료를 지급하면 이는 대가관계가 성립하지 아니하여 부가가가치세의 과세대상이 되지 아니한다고 밝힌 것이라 할 것인데, 원고의 하역작업을 보면 화물을 선박에서 싸이로에 입고하기까지 기계식 일관작업방식을 취하고 있어 본선하역부분과 육상하역부분이 명확히 구분되지 아니하고, 또한 그렇기 때문에 원고와 화주 사이에서 체결된 계약이 육상하역부분만에 관한 계약이라고 보기 어려울 뿐 아니라 이 사건 조출료는 화주가 자기 비용으로 원고에게 지급한 것이 아니라 선주의 비용으로 지급하였으니 이 사건 조출료는 위 국세청장이 회시한바, 부가가치세의 과세대상이 되지 않는 것이라 할 수 없고, 오히려 원고가 선주 및 화주에게 해상운송물에 대한 본선하역 및 육상하역을 포함한 하역용역을 제공한 대가로서 지급받은 것이라 할 것이므로 이는 부가가치세의 과세대상이 된다고 할 것이다.

Furthermore, the fact that the practice of non-taxation under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is insufficient only to establish the practices of non-taxation, and the tax authorities did not impose taxes for a certain period of time, and there is a speech or behavior suggesting the taxpayer not to impose taxes, and there is a circumstance that it is not unreasonable for the taxpayer to trust because the taxpayer did not impose taxes for a considerable period of time in the public interest needs (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu537, Aug. 18, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 86Nu537, Aug. 18, 1987). Accordingly, according to the above, even though the defendant who is the tax authorities can impose value-added tax on the early payment of this case, it cannot be deemed that the defendant, including the plaintiff, proposed non-taxation or did not impose taxes for a certain period of time, and there is no proof by the plaintiff as to the grounds that meet the requirements for establishing the non-taxation practice, as seen above, the taxation disposition of this case is legitimate.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the ground that the taxation disposition of this case was unlawful is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges' Dumen (Presiding Judge)