logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.05.13 2016구합50440
부가가치세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On February 3, 2010, the Plaintiff acquired Gangnam-gu Seoul and 1004 stories 1004 (hereinafter “the instant officetel”) and registered as a lodging business on April 1, 2010, and filed a report on the closure of business on June 29, 2010, and sold on June 2, 2014.

On December 1, 2014, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff provided leased services during the period of possession of the instant officetel, and made business registration ex officio, and determined and notified each value-added tax from January 1, 201 to January 2014, as stated in the purport of the claim.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] A] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5 (including serial numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is not obligated to pay the value-added tax since it did not receive the value-added tax from the lessee.

In addition, the plaintiff visited the Gangnam Tax Office and consulted with the person in charge of the business, and trusted that the person in charge of the business is not required to register the business when the office is used for residential purposes and reported the business closure.

Nevertheless, since the Defendant issued the instant disposition, the instant disposition was unlawful against the principle of trust protection.

B. According to Article 26(1)12 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 41(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, value-added tax shall be exempted on rental of housing (excluding residential cases for business among the buildings used for commercial residence).

However, in addition to the written evidence Nos. 3 and 3, the Plaintiff’s purpose of the argument is to lease the instant officetel to the Donina Co., Ltd. on March 25, 2010, and Article 2 of the lease agreement is to acquire the rent by operating the instant officetel as a medium and long-term rental facility.

arrow