In cases where a person who has fully borne construction expenses for an underground passage reverted to the State, etc. lends it to another person with permission to occupy and use an underground passage, whether such expenses include maintenance and repair expenses for an underground passage among the construction expenses prescribed in Article 49-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act to be deducted from the deposit money

In cases where a person who has fully borne the construction cost of an underground passage reverted to the State or a local government lends it to another person with permission for occupation and use as an underground passage, the construction cost under Article 49-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, which stipulates that the amount equivalent to the construction cost shall not be regarded as a lease money or a lease deposit in calculating the tax base of the value-added tax on the supply of real estate leased services, refers to

Article 13 (1) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 49-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree thereof

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 decided May 1, 201

Head of the Tax Office;

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu8295 delivered on December 21, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the provisions of Article 49-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, where a business operator supplies real estate rental services and receives security deposit or deposit for lease money, the tax base shall be the amount calculated by the formula prescribed in Article 13 (1) 2 of the Act by deeming that he receives the price other than money under Article 13 (1) 2 of the Act, and where a person who bears the whole construction cost of underground passage to be reverted to the State or a local government by obtaining permission for occupation and use as an underground passage, the amount equivalent to the construction cost prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy shall not be deemed as the security deposit or deposit money. The construction cost

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no violation of law as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, even after examining the records, the plaintiff's contents of the number for the underground passage of this case are different from the new construction of underground passage, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no evidence to recognize the cost required as the construction cost, not the simple maintenance cost, and therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's letter is just and there is no error of law such as the theory

In addition, since the non-administrative agency's underground passage and other public facilities installed with permission under Article 24 of the Urban Planning Act belongs to the state or local government which is to manage the facilities without compensation under Article 83 (2) of the same Act and do not require any separate donation, the court below's decision that it constitutes repair expenses is inappropriate in its reasoning. However, as seen above, in this case where there is no evidence to see that the repair expenses in this case exceed the maintenance expenses and there is no evidence to see it as the construction expenses, the above part at the time of the original adjudication does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and it is not reasonable to point this out.

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 Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)