Scope of application of Article 13 (1) and (5) of the Value-Added Tax Act, proviso to Article 48-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act;

Article 13(1) and (5) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the proviso of Article 48-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall not apply to cases where the value of the building subject to value-added tax is not separated from the value of the building subject to value-added tax when the entrepreneur supplies the land and buildings fixed on the land, and the value of the land subject to value-added tax is unclear.

Articles 13(1) and 13(5) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 48-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

[Judgment of the court below]

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu390 delivered on February 25, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant's taxation of this case is unlawful since the defendant's estimation of the supply price of the building, which is the value-added tax base of the plaintiff's return under the provision of this case, is not clear and it is not reasonable to distinguish the supply price of the building from the supply price of the building in this case, because it applied the method of calculating the market price of the land and the building pursuant to the proviso of Article 21 (2) and Article 13 (5) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the proviso of Article 48-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, but there is no evidence that the defendant's estimation of the supply price of the building in this case, but there is no requirement to determine the estimation of the supply price of the building in this case, and the court below's determination of the supply price of the building in this case is not reasonable to interpret the proviso of Article 13 (1) and (5) of the Value-Added Tax Act and the proviso of Article 48-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act.

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.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)