beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case, such as the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance, are as follows 2. The relevant part of the judgment of the first instance is modified as stated in the following 3. As such, the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is included in addition to the additional decision as to the Plaintiff’s assertion as stated in the following 3. Conclusion, and is the same as the exclusion of the “3. Conclusion” portion. Thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article
2. Following the 3rd of the first instance judgment of the first instance court, the amended portion “No. 3” was as follows: “No. 3, No. 4, and No. 1 through No. 3 were included in the number of branches.” On the 3rd of the first instance judgment, “Presentation” was “No. 4 under the 3rd of the first instance judgment.” On the 4 second of the first instance judgment, “The Plaintiff entered into a fire insurance contract with an insurance company on May 26, 2015, where the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the building of this case was completed under one’s own name, but this appears to have been necessary for the Plaintiff to enter into a fire insurance contract on the building of this case to obtain a loan from the Industrial Bank of Korea on the same day.”
3. Additional determination
A. Article 39(1)7 of the Value-Added Tax Act, which excludes the Plaintiff’s assertion of input tax amount, provides that “the input tax amount related to the land prescribed by Presidential Decree” refers to “capital expenses for the creation of land, etc.” and this refers to the expenses incurred in realizing the value of the land. As acquisition and removal of the building of this case are carried out, the value of the building of this case cannot be deemed to have increased actually. Thus, the input tax amount related to the acquisition and removal expenses of the building of this case
Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.
Plaintiff .