Daejeon District Court 201Guhap3656 ( October 24, 2012)

Cho Jae-chul2010 Before 3002 (Law No. 111, 2011)

An officetel similar to a house shall not be exempt from value-added tax for a national housing scale.

(The same as the judgment of the court of first instance) It does not constitute national housing exempt from value-added tax, in case of a building which is similar to a house by installing a balcony without obtaining permission for change of the purpose of use after the building was newly constructed in conformity with the standards for the construction of an officetel with the permission for construction of an officetel, and the approval for use was completed at the beginning of the first place.

Article 106 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2012Nu2670 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

EAA

The Director of the National Tax Service

Daejeon District Court Decision 201Guhap3656 Decided October 24, 2012

April 11, 2013

May 2, 2013

1 The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and each disposition of imposition of KRW 00,00, 00, 000, 200, 2000, 2000, 2000, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation in this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is intended to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 1420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition to dismiss it.