Seoul Administrative Court 2007Guhap37810 (2008.08)

National High Court Decision 2006Du2314 (Law No. 12, 2007)

Calculation of the value of supply of buildings supplied together with other tangible assets;

Land and buildings have the standard market price, but there are no other tangible assets, and there is no appraisal value, so the above purchase price is calculated in proportion to the book value of land, buildings and other tangible assets, and then the land and buildings with the standard market price are calculated by re-calculated.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke below shall be revoked.

2. The part of the Defendant’s refusal disposition against the Plaintiff on April 6, 2006, which exceeds KRW 1,723,597,48, among the disposition of correction of KRW 2,11,247,60, which was issued against the Plaintiff on February 2005, shall be revoked.

3. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

4. Of the total litigation costs, 4/5 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on April 6, 2006 of value-added tax 2,11,247,600 for the second term of 205 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke the below shall be revoked. The part exceeding KRW 1,087,265,326, out of the disposition rejecting the plaintiff's claim for correction of value-added tax 2,111,247,60 on April 6, 2006 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's reasoning in this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall accept it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

The court's explanation in this part is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases: Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

(3) Furthermore, even if the purchase price of the instant building, etc. is included in the purchase price stipulated in the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition was erroneous in calculating the supply price of the instant building, etc., and thus, it is unclear that the value of the instant land and the value of the instant building, etc., out of the purchase price stipulated in the instant sales contract, are unclear. Thus, the supply price of the instant building, etc. shall be calculated pursuant to the proviso of Article 48-2 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act. As of the date of the instant sales contract, the instant land and the instant building, etc., as of the date of the instant sales contract, have the standard market price, but there are no other tangible assets, and there is no appraisal value, so it is reasonable to calculate the supply price of the instant building, etc., by again calculating the total amount distributed as above, in proportion to the book value of each of the instant land, the instant building, and other tangible assets.

However, as of the date of the instant sales contract, the following facts are identical to the book value of the instant land, the instant building and other tangible assets as of the date of the instant sales contract, and the Defendant, while rendering the instant disposition, found that the standard market value of the instant building as of the date of the instant sales contract is KRW 11,093,228,830, which appears to have been mistakenly reported by the Plaintiff and calculated the value of the instant building on the premise that it would have been erroneously reported by the Plaintiff. Thus, in accordance with the above legal principles, if the supply value of the instant building, etc. is re-calculated based on the 1,299,725,683, among other tangible assets, the supply value of the building of the instant case is 12,93,296,80,49,99, and the supply value of the building of the building of this case among other tangible assets (excluding trees subject to tax exemption under Article 12 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act) is 4,29,99,999.

Therefore, the part that exceeds 1,723,597,48 won [the tax base of the building of this case 12,939,725,683 + the tax base of the structure, machinery, apparatus, machinery and tools among other tangible assets x 4,296,249,199 won] of the defendant's rejection disposition of correction of value-added tax 2,11,247,60 won for the second term of February 2005 against the plaintiff is illegal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed for lack of reason. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, part of the plaintiff's appeal is accepted and the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the above 1,723,597,48 won in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the above 1,723,597,48 won in the disposition of this case is revoked, and the part against the plaintiff in excess of the above 1,723,597,48 won in the disposition of this case