[1] Whether late payment fees are money in relation to construction services and payment, which are included in the tax base of value-added tax (negative)

[2] The case holding that the imposition of value-added tax, which was made without deducting the value-added tax amount on the late payment charges paid under the trust of the tax authority's public opinion list, as the input tax amount, is unlawful against the principle of good

[1] The late payment charge cannot be deemed as money in a quid pro quo relationship with construction services and is not included in the tax base of value-added tax.

[2] The case holding that the imposition of value-added tax, which was made without deducting the value-added tax amount on the late payment charges paid under the trust of the tax authority's public opinion list, as the input tax amount, is unlawful against the principle of good faith

[1] Article 13(1) and (2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5585 of Dec. 28, 1998); Article 48(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15973 of Dec. 31, 1998) / [2] Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 13(1) and (2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5585 of Dec. 28, 1998); Article 48(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15973 of Dec. 31, 1998)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 88Nu1417 decided Oct. 10, 1989 (Gong1989, 1678) Supreme Court Decision 97Nu15722 decided Dec. 9, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 334) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu13746 decided Jan. 23, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 699)

Comprehensive Development (Attorney Seo-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of the District Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu1818 delivered on December 9, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as follows. Since the late payment charge of this case cannot be deemed as money in a quid pro quo relationship with the construction work, it is not subject to the Plaintiff's input tax deduction. However, since the tax authorities such as the Defendant imposed value-added tax on the late payment charge and deducted it from the output tax amount by including it in the output tax amount, and the overdue interest or late payment charge at the time of the disposition of this case or at the National Tax Service's questioning meeting are included in the tax base and the time of supply becomes final and conclusive, the non-party Large Forest Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party Co., Ltd.") reported and paid the value-added tax on the late payment charge of this case other than the late payment charge of this case received from the Plaintiff in relation to the construction contract of this case. The Plaintiff did not deduct the input tax amount or refund it to the non-party Co. 2, 190, 191, and 192, the Defendant submitted the previous tax invoice to the Defendant who received the value-added tax amount from the Plaintiff.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and as long as the late payment charge of this case cannot be deemed as money in payment relation with construction services, it is not included in the tax base of value-added tax, there is no room to discuss the time of supply for the late payment charge of this case. Thus, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of good faith

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)