Criteria for determining whether the value-added tax on the successful bid of the building, etc. is included in the successful bid price

According to the provisions of Articles 615, 631, and 728 of the Civil Procedure Act, when an execution court intends to attach real estate to an auction, it shall have an appraiser evaluate it without fail, and determine the minimum auction price by taking account of the appraised value. The minimum auction price determined so becomes the basis for determining the minimum auction price for the auction real estate. Therefore, whether the price for auction includes the value-added tax on the auction of the real estate can be clearly determined by examining the contents of the assessment report, etc.

Articles 615, 631, and 728 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 17(2) and 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 4808, Dec. 22, 1994); Article 58(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Han-U.S. Co., Ltd. (Attorney Han-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu22076 delivered on May 30, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the provisions of Articles 615, 631, and 728 of the Civil Procedure Act, when an execution court intends to attach real estate to an auction, it shall have an appraiser evaluate it without fail, and determine the minimum auction price by taking account of the appraised value. The minimum auction price determined so becomes the basis for determining the minimum auction price for the auction real estate. Thus, whether the price for auction includes the value-added tax on the auction of the real estate can be clearly determined by examining the contents of the assessment report, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu2977 delivered on September 12, 1989).

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that even if the plaintiff received and submitted a tax invoice prepared to collect the value-added tax from the previous owner after receiving it after the fact that the price paid by the plaintiff does not include the value-added tax on the successful bid of the building, machinery and apparatus, since the appraised value of the building, machinery and apparatus, which was prepared at the time of the auction of this case does not include the value-added tax, it cannot be refunded as the input tax amount, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)