Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Gu Partnership-56789 ( October 21, 2014)

Seocho 2013west 4613 ( October 20, 2014)

In the case of temporary or temporary sale of a part of a building constructed for the purpose of sale by a business operator until it is sold in lots, it does not constitute private supply.

If a business operator temporarily or temporarily sells part of a building constructed for the purpose of sale until the sale in lots, it cannot be deemed that such temporary or temporary lease constitutes a so-called self-supply in which the business operator directly uses and consumes for his/her own business.

Article 15 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

2014Nu6986 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

OO Construction Co., Ltd.

AA Head of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap56789 decided October 21, 2014

July 16, 2014

August 13, 2014

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for 201 on July 1, 2011, KRW 000 of the value-added tax for 201, KRW 000 of the value-added tax for 1 year 2012, and KRW 000 of the value-added tax for 2 year 2012

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is the same as that of the court of first instance, except for adding the following matters, and thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

Parts to be added

○ The following is added to the 6th sentence of the first instance court’s 20th sentence “it is impossible to interpret the reduction of cattle”:

7) The Plaintiff appears to have no other house than the instant apartment, and the Defendant did not register as a real estate rental business; 8) The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff had already concluded a lease contract with BB prior to the conclusion of the lease contract with BB, and thus, the lease of the instant apartment cannot be deemed a temporary or provisional lease. However, it cannot be concluded that the said lease contract was concluded on October 7, 201, because the highest of the lease contract for the instant apartment was concluded on October 7, 201, and it cannot be concluded that the said lease contract was concluded prior to the sales agency service contract. Even if the said lease contract was concluded prior to the sales agency service contract, the said lease contract was concluded in most cases after the sales agency service contract was concluded, as well as most of the remainder after the sales agency service contract was concluded, and 9) the Defendant is more appropriate to classify the instant apartment into the account for sales purposes. However, from the Plaintiff’s standpoint, it cannot be deemed that the instant apartment is a temporary or provisional lease contract for the instant apartment.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just for the conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.