logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.06.01 2015누61674
부가가치세부과처분등취소 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for adding the following judgments, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Additional taxation on the principle of no taxation without law

Dried or non-taxable

Summary of Tax Reduction and Exemption

As a matter of course, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted as the legal text, barring any special circumstance, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. Thus, the scope of deeming that the supply of goods or services, which are essentially incidental to the supply of goods or services exempt from value-added tax pursuant to the provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act, is included in the supply of goods or services exempt from value-added tax, shall be limited to only the supply of the main goods or services that are essentially incidental thereto, and only to any goods or services that are exempt from value-added tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2000Du7131, Mar. 15, 2001). The same applies to the goods

According to the aforementioned evidence, the Plaintiff merely performed the instant construction work, which is a housing site construction work in the long-term area, and appears to have not performed the national housing construction work. Even if the key service is essential for the construction of national housing, the key service provided by the Plaintiff, not a supplier of the main service called the national housing construction work, cannot be deemed to be an incidental service exempt from value-added tax pursuant to Article 106(1)4 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

The decision of the first instance court in the decision is justifiable.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

arrow