Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap7651 (Law No. 19, 2016)

Appellate Court 2015No1039 ( October 14, 2015)

A lessor is liable to pay value-added tax even if the custodian of the lessor embezzleds rents.

(1) Even if a building manager embezzled, it is difficult to see that the leased property itself exceeds the scope of delegation, and it is only an internal circumstance that does not deliver rent. Since the supply of lease services is completed, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the value-added tax as a person who supplied the service independently for the business of the Value-Added Tax Act.

2016Nu49657 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

IsaA

BB Director of the Tax Office

May 19, 2016

November 9, 2016

November 30, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. On July 21, 2014, the Defendant revoked the imposition of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional taxes) for the first time on 2009 against the Plaintiffs on October 1, 2014, and the imposition of KRW 0,00,000 (including additional taxes, and the “0,000,000,000” in the written complaint appears to be erroneous) for the second time on 2009 against the Plaintiffs, respectively.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as shown in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of some of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420

○ 2, 18 and 19 shall read “the omission of approximately KRW 60 million for the first term rent of 2009, and approximately KRW 28 million for the second term rent of 2009 from sales (lease income)” as “the building lease proceeds of this case in 2009 as indicated below,” and add the following table to the second term two pages.

○ 3 pages 5,109,362 " 5,109,360 won" shall be " 5,109,360 won".

○ 4 2 pages 4 . . ... ...... .....

○ from the fourth bottom to the 5th below:

(1) The Supreme Court Decision 2010Du1385 Decided September 10, 2015 asserts that there is no value-added tax liability as long as it cannot be viewed as the supply of services because the lease income from the criminal act committed by ○○○○, etc. itself is not attributed to the Plaintiff, who itself collected the lease contract, and thus, cannot be seen as the supply of services. However, the above Supreme Court Decision is a transfer income tax case on whether the transfer income belongs to the principal depending on the final feasibility of the transfer income in case where part of the transfer income is embezzled as the agent transferred assets at low price contrary to the purport of delegation. On the other hand, the value-added tax is a consumption tax that imposes a tax burden by transferring the transaction partner a tax burden on the basis of added value arising from each stage in which the goods or services are produced, supplied or distributed. Accordingly, the instant disposition of imposition of the transfer income tax in question as well as the instant tax item cannot be invoked as it is by virtue of the nature of the taxation disposition in this case.

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.