Suwon District Court 2014Guhap51198 (24. 2015)

Whether the imposition of additional tax shall be revoked on the grounds that a tax exemption report or a tax invoice for the services extended to balcony is not issued due to justifiable grounds.

It is difficult to deem that the business that supplies the service of this case constitutes a business similar to the residential building supply business as stipulated in subparagraph 10 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act, which is impossible or substantially difficult to issue

2015Nu51806 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

* Land and Housing Corporation

** Tax Office et al.

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Guhap51198 Decided June 24, 2015

October 14, 2015

November 18, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The decision of the first instance shall be revoked. The decision of the plaintiff is revoked. The defendant** the director of the tax office's separate sheet in attached Form 1.

The "additional Tax on the same list" in the imposition disposition of value-added tax, and each disposition, defendant** the director of the tax office.

of each disposition imposing value-added tax listed in the separate sheet No. 2 for each item of the separate sheet No. 2

Sector, defendant**** The same list in each disposition imposing value-added tax as shown in the separate sheet 3 attached hereto prepared by the director of the tax office.

The term "additional Tax" shall revoke all of the dispositions for imposition of each entry.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on the instant case is based on Paragraph 2 of the same Article.

In addition, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition.

It shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

Article 25-2 subparag. 3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act.

section 10 of the same section, even if it does not constitute a "residential building supply business" under section 10 of the same section

A business similar to subparagraphs 1 through 9, for which it is impossible or significantly difficult to issue a tax invoice.

As a result, this case's tax disposition can be issued in lieu of the issuance of the tax invoice for the service in this case's case's tax disposition is illegal.Article 25-2 subparagraph 10 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "other businesses similar to subparagraphs 1 through 9 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act that are either impossible or substantially difficult to issue the tax invoice." However, Article 53 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "if a person is not a business operator, a business operator may issue the tax invoice by stating the address, name, and resident registration number of the person who receives the service," and the above evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings provide the service in this case's case's tax invoice can not be seen as being known to the buyer and it is difficult to view that the plaintiff did not have any conditions or preparation to issue the tax invoice to the buyer."

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and all appeals by the plaintiff are dismissed as it is without merit.

this decision is delivered with the judgment of the court.