[1] Where a taxable business and a tax-free business are concurrently operated, the method of distributing common input tax amount that cannot be divided into actual reversion

[2] The case holding that where the input tax amount following the construction of a parking lot is a common input tax amount that cannot be classified into actual reversion because it is common to the medical business that is a tax-free business and the parking lot business that is a taxable business, the input tax amount related to the tax-free business should be calculated in accordance with the ratio occupied by the revenue amount for the medical business among the total sum of supply amount for the parking lot

[1] According to Article 17(1), (2)4, and (6) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 18-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, where an entrepreneur concurrently runs a taxable business and a tax-free business, the calculation of the input tax amount related to the tax-free business shall be based on the actual reversion. However, in cases of a common purchase tax that is commonly used for a taxable business and a tax-free business and thus is not distinguishable from the actual reversion, in principle, the amount of the common purchase tax shall be calculated by dividing the common purchase tax according to

[2] The case holding that, where the input tax amount following the construction of a parking lot is a common input tax amount that cannot be divided into actual reversion because it is common to the medical business that is a tax-free business and the parking lot business that is a taxable business, the input tax amount related to the tax-free business should be calculated in accordance with the ratio of the revenue amount for the medical business among the total sum of the supply amount for the parking lot

[1] Article 17(1), (2)4, and (6) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 18-2(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act / [2] Article 12(1)4, Article 17(1)4, Article 17(2)4, Article 17(6)4, Article 29 subparag. 1, Article 61(1), and Article 18-2(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article

[1] Supreme Court Decision 82Nu170 delivered on September 28, 1982 (Gong1982, 1025) Supreme Court Decision 86Nu753 delivered on April 14, 1987 (Gong1987, 831)

Medical Corporation-Related Medical Foundation (Attorney Lee Im-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu549 delivered on October 29, 1999

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 17(1) and (2)4, Article 17(6) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 18-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, where an entrepreneur concurrently runs a taxable business and a tax-free business, the calculation of the input tax amount related to the tax-free business shall be based on the actual attribution. However, in cases of a common input tax amount that cannot be distinguished from the actual attribution because it is commonly used for a taxable business and a tax-free business, in principle, the input tax amount related to the tax-free business shall be calculated by

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the input tax amount related to the parking lot construction of this case should be calculated pro rataly according to the ratio of the supply amount for the parking lot business and the revenue amount for the medical service business among the total sum of the supply amount for the parking lot business and the revenue amount for the medical service in accordance with the formula under Article 61 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Act. In addition, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the input tax amount related to the exempted business should be calculated pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro rata pro

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)