Whether the supply of unmanned public telephone management services is exempt from value-added tax.

The term "public telephone services" under Article 12 (1) 8 of the Value-Added Tax Act refers only to the services that are directly supplied to the users of the public telephone, and it is reasonable to view that management services of the public telephone that are the suppliers of the public telephone services are not included in the above services provided by a third party at the preceding stage of the supply. Moreover, management services of the above public telephone are related to the use of the public telephone, which is the main transaction, and their contents and suppliers are different from each other, and they are not included in the subject of exemption of value-added tax because they do not fall under any of the incidental services under Article 3 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act.

Articles 12(1)8, 12(3), and 1(4) of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

[Defendant-Appellant] Cho Jae-sik, a foundation

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu115 delivered on October 7, 1983

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of the defendant litigation performer are also examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since one of the above-mentioned public telephone services under the control of the Minister of Information and Communication (the Korea Telecommunication Corporation from January 1, 1982) provides for the exemption of value-added tax-added tax-added tax-free services for one of the above-mentioned public telephone services, and the so-called unmanned public telephone, etc. installed for the purpose of direct management by a specific person, or for the entrusted management of such services, and the unmanned public telephone services are operated directly by the head of the Ministry of Information and Communication, but the accidents involving the supply of huge manpower and equipment and the supply of such services occur frequently, and the supply of such services are exempt from value-added tax-added tax-added tax-free services-free services-free services-free services-free services-free services-free services-free services-free 7 percent of the cost-free services-free services-free services-free services-free services-free services-free services-free services-free services-free services-free services-free services-free services-free services-free services-free services-free services-free services-free services-related services-related services-related services-related services-related services-related services-related services-related services-related services-related services-related services-related services-related services-related services-related services-related services-related services-related services-related services-related services- 7.

2. However, Article 12 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the supply of goods or services falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be exempted from value-added tax, and Article 12 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the content and supplier of the services shall be indicated in subparagraph 8, but it is evident that the above Value-Added Tax Act is a kind of public telephone service provided under the former Telecommunications Act, which was in force at the time of the instant case, in light of the relevant provisions of the Telecommunications Business Act (Abolition. 1, 1984 by the Regulations of the Telecommunications Business Act). Article 2 (3) of the same Act provides that the provision of public telecommunications services shall be defined as "the intermediate of another person's communications using telecommunications facilities and equipment or the provision of other telecommunications facilities for the use of other person's communications." Article 3 (2) of the same Act provides that the public telephone service exempted from value-added tax in Article 12 (1) 8 of the Value-Added Tax Act shall not be included in the supply of telecommunications services directly from a third party.

In addition, Article 12(3) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the supply of goods or services essential for the supply of goods or services subject to tax exemption under paragraph (1) shall be deemed to be included in the exempted goods or services under paragraph (1) of the same Article, but this provision provides that the supply of goods or services essential for the supply of goods or services which are the main transaction shall be included in the provisions of paragraph (4) of Article 1 of the same Act. Since the provision provides that "the supply of goods or services essential for the supply of goods or services which are the main transaction" is the same as that of the main transaction under paragraph (3) of Article 12 of the same Act, the provision of Article 12(3) of the same Act provides that "the supply of goods or services essential for the supply of goods or services, which is the main transaction, shall be deemed to be included in the main transaction of the goods or services which is the main transaction under subparagraph 1 of Article 1 of the same Act, and it shall be deemed that the main transaction of the goods or services is ordinarily included in the main transaction of the supply of goods or services under subparagraph 3 of Article 4 of the same Act:

3. The court below's decision that the public telephone management services under Article 12 (1) 8 of the Value-Added Tax Act include the public telephone management services in addition to the use services of the public telephone, and that the management services of the public telephone supplied by the plaintiff constitute an incidental service under Article 12 (3) of the same Act in relation to the use services of the public telephone and thus constitutes the subject of a value-added tax exemption, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the scope of the public telephone services and the scope of incidental services under Article 12 (1) 8 of the same Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore,

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju