The provisions to submit a detailed statement of real estate rental price to a leased private investment project (BTL) are not applicable.

Since it conforms to the principle of substantial taxation that the amount received by a rental private investment business entity is a long-term installment of service cost, the imposition of additional tax on the premise that the real estate rental business entity is a real estate rental business entity is illegal.

Article 55 of the Value-Added Tax Act: Submission of Statement of Cash Sales, etc. and Article 60 of the Value-Added Tax

2015Guhap592 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AAAAA Corporation

○○ Head of tax office

December 10, 2015

December 24, 2015

1. The imposition of value-added tax by the Defendant on the Plaintiff on the 200○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the 200○○○○○○○○○ on the 200○○○○○○○○○○ on the 200○○○○○○ on the 200○○○○○○○ on the 200○○○○○○, on the 200○○○○○ on the 200○○○○ on the 200○○○ on the 200○○○○ on the 200○○○○ on the 200○○○○ on the 200○○○○ on the

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Under Article 4 subparagraph 2 of the former Public-Private Partnerships Act (amended by Act No. 7386, Jan. 27, 2005; hereinafter referred to as the "former Public-Private Partnerships Act"), the Plaintiff’s ownership belongs to ○○ Metropolitan City after constructing school facilities at its own expense. While managing and operating the above school, the Plaintiff concluded a concession agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant concession agreement”) with ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○”).

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(i) cannot be deemed income from a leasing business;

In accordance with the instant concession agreement, the Plaintiff constructed the instant facilities at its own expense, provided them to ○○ Metropolitan City, and paid facility rents, etc., but the real substance of the facility rents, etc. is merely recovering the investment funds invested by the Plaintiff, and thus cannot be deemed income from the rental business. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is a real estate rental business entity is illegal.

2) Article 20-2(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010; Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 201; Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 201) was newly established to require a real estate rental business entity to submit a detailed statement of real estate rental value to a real estate rental business entity. The legislative intent of the new provision is to build tax infrastructure and train the tax base of a real estate rental business entity. However, government subsidies received by a rental private investment business entity, such as the Plaintiff, such as the Plaintiff, are transparent, so applying the above Value-Added Tax Act to the Plaintiff, which is contrary to the principle of trust and good faith, is contrary to the principle of interpretation of the tax law that is the purpose of Article 18(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and there are justifiable grounds for failure to submit a detailed statement of real estate rental value.

The Plaintiff reported and paid the value-added tax on the receipt of government subsidies from around 2000.0.0. The Defendant, from around 2000.0.00.0.00, did not inform the Plaintiff that it should submit a detailed statement of real estate rental price pursuant to the Value-Added Tax Act or demanded the Plaintiff to submit a detailed statement. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s disposition of this case on the ground that the Plaintiff did not submit a detailed statement of real estate rental price to the Plaintiff goes against the principle of trust and good faith, and there is a justifiable reason for the Plaintiff’s failure to submit a detailed statement of real estate rental price. Accordingly

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Whether the government payments may be regarded as income under the rental business;

1) Facts of recognition

In full view of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire arguments, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A) The main contents of the instant concession agreement are as follows.

The superintendent of education of ○○ Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the "competent authority") intends to contribute to the improvement of the quality of life of the people by promoting the construction and operation of creative and efficient school facilities through ○○○○○ and 3 new build-transfer-lease projects (BTL).

1. The project shall be implemented by means of leased private investment projects (BTL) in accordance with the method set forth in subparagraph 2 of Article 4 of the Private Investment Act, and shall be implemented as one unit project by combining new facilities projects among ○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○, ○○○○○○, and ○○○○○, and ○○○○○○, in order to realize the economy in terms of the scale of construction and operation, and shall be promoted as projects annexed to school stores in order to enhance the efficiency in the use and functions of the facilities and to ease the financial burden of the competent authorities. (3) The funds invested by the project implementer for the construction of the facilities shall be calculated in accordance with this Convention. The rents paid and the net profits arising from the operation of the facilities shall be recovered, and the expenses for the operation and maintenance of the facilities shall be covered by the operating expenses calculated in accordance

- the term “operating costs” refers to personnel expenses, maintenance and management expenses, replacement for operating facilities, incidental expenses and all other expenses for the maintenance, management and operation of the facilities received by the concessionaire from the competent authority in accordance with this Convention for the duration of the establishment of the management and operation rights; - The term “facilities rent” refers to the cost for the provision of the business facilities which the concessionaire receives by the competent authority in equal installments and equal installments of the principal and interest in accordance with this Convention for the duration of the establishment of the management and operation rights; - The term “government payment” refers to the sum of the rents and

(1) Ownership of the project facilities shall revert to the competent authority upon completion of the project facilities.

Article 10 (Period for Designation and Operation Right)

(1) Unless otherwise provided in this Convention, the period for the establishment of the right to manage and operate the business facilities shall be 20 years.

Article 40 (Exercise of Management and Operation Right)

(1) The concessionaire shall lease the project facilities to the competent authority on the basis of the management and operation rights prescribed in this Convention and at the same time maintain, manage and operate them in an appropriate manner in accordance with this Convention.

Article 41 (Lease Contract for Main Business Facilities)

1. The term of the management and operation rights under the conditions as prescribed by this Convention shall be the terms of the lease and the terms of the lease and the terms of the lease and the terms of the lease and the terms of the management and operation rights to be used by the concessionaire to the competent authority and the competent authority shall pay rent for the use of the project facilities.

(1) Except as otherwise provided for in this Convention, rents paid by the competent authority to any project operator on a quarterly basis for the first five years after the commencement of lease by each unit school (hereinafter referred to as "period for the first five years of application of rents") shall be calculated by reflecting the business profit rate calculated pursuant to Article 55 (2) in the total private investment expenses (Articles 12 through 13).

① The rent shall be adjusted one time every five years after the commencement of the lease by unit school pursuant to Article 55 (Calculation of Business Return). In this case, the following day from each fifth anniversary of the commencement of the application period of each rent (including the first day) shall be the base date for adjustment. (B) The Plaintiff newly constructed the instant facility from around 000 to around 2000 in accordance with the instant concession agreement, and reverted it to ○○ Metropolitan City, and the Plaintiff performed the management and operation of the instant facility. The Plaintiff was paid the rent and operating expenses from around 000 to 00. (c) The Plaintiff submitted a detailed statement on the supply of real estate from 2000 to 00. (d) The Plaintiff submitted a detailed statement on the supply of real estate rent and operating expenses received from ○○ Metropolitan City as the revenue amount under the real estate management business.

2) Determination

According to the above facts, the instant concession agreement is based on the basic structure that the Plaintiff constructed the instant facilities at its own expense and vests ownership in ○○ Metropolitan City, and the funds invested by the Plaintiff for the construction of the instant facilities are recovered as the rent calculated in accordance with the instant concession agreement. There was no separate lease agreement between the Plaintiff and ○○ Metropolitan City, other than the instant concession agreement. Unlike the general lease agreement, the instant lease agreement was concluded in a manner that reflects the business profit rate stipulated in the instant concession agreement in the total private investment cost invested by the Plaintiff, and was agreed to pay the Plaintiff the total private investment cost invested by the Plaintiff in the form of equal installment of principal and interest, etc. Accordingly, even if the instant concession agreement or the former Private Investment Act uses terms such as lease and rent, etc., it is reasonable to view that the money actually received by the Plaintiff as the usage of rent, etc. from ○○ Metropolitan City is the long-term installment of the contract price for the instant facilities.

Furthermore, the purpose of the Private Investment Act is only to recognize the concessionaire the right to manage and operate infrastructure facilities for a certain period of time by the State or a local government with respect to the method of implementing private investment projects, which hold ownership of infrastructure facilities. As the amendment was made on January 27, 2005 by Act No. 7386, Article 4 Subparag. 2 recognized the concessionaire the right to manage and operate the infrastructure facilities and to lease the infrastructure facilities to the State or a local government, while it was newly established to use and profit from the State or the local government. However, with respect to facilities which are difficult for the concessionaire to directly operate the infrastructure or are difficult to recover the cost of investment, the State or the local government made up the cost of investment by compensating the concessionaire for the cost of investment, and from the standpoint of the State or the local government, it seems that the legislative purpose is to divide the financial burden of the State or the local government by paying the said cost of investment in the form of rent over a long-term period. In light of this,

Therefore, deeming that the money received by the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant concession agreement is a long-term installment in accordance with its substance accords with the principle of substantial taxation. As such, the instant disposition was unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to submit a detailed statement of real estate rental price on the premise that the Plaintiff is a real estate leasing business entity.

B. Sub-committee

Ultimately, without examining the remaining arguments of the Plaintiff, the instant disposition is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.