Gwangju District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-1978 ( October 14, 2019)

Cho Jae-2017-Magju-572 (Law No. 17, 2017)

Whether the construction works for expanding balcony provided by the Si corporation constitutes a taxable object of value-added tax.

(A)It is reasonable to treat the construction contractor as well as whether the extension of balcony to the construction contractor constitutes a taxable object separate from national housing construction services. It is reasonable for the construction contractor to treat the extension of balcony to the buyer in the event as to whether the supply of balcony constitutes a taxable object separate from national housing supply.

Article 106 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7003 of Dec. 30, 2003) Article 106 (Exemption, etc. of Value-Added Tax)

The revocation of the disposition imposing value-added tax on Gwangju High Court 2019Nu10596

AAAAAA

BB Director of the Tax Office

on October 27, 2019

on October 14, 2019

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu and purport of appeal

The remainder of the judgment in the first instance court, excluding the dismissed part, shall be revoked. On October 18, 2016, the Defendant revoked all imposition of value-added tax of KRW 2,43,04,280 on the Plaintiff on the second half-year 1, 2011, KRW 24,440,020 on the first half-year 2, 2012, KRW 62,742,80 on the second half-year 2012, KRW 612,760 on the first half-year 20,130, KRW 620 on the second half-year 20,620, KRW 620 on the second half-year 2014, KRW 48,740, KRW 320 on the second half-year 2,63,58,510 on the Plaintiff (the first instance court rejected part of the Plaintiff’s claim, and excluded this part from the scope of the appeal).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning concerning this case is as follows: (a) deleted the part concerning the claim for revocation with respect to the reduced part among the lawsuits in this case on April 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) other than the part concerning the claim for revocation with respect to the reduced part among the lawsuits in this case on September 13, 200, by multiplying the 13rd and nine (9). Thus, the court's reasoning is as follows: (c) under Article 8 (2

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just as it is in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.