logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2008. 11. 06. 선고 2008구합1044 판결
발코니 섀시 설치공사를 아파트와 별도로 공급되는 용역으로 보고 과세한 처분의 당부[국승]
Title

Appropriateness of a disposition imposing a tax by reporting the installation of a balcony voting as services supplied separately from apartment buildings;

Summary

Housing construction services below the scale of national housing shall include the supply of goods or services inevitably incidental thereto, and separately from the apartment sale contract, a contract for the installation of the balcony passenger voting is concluded in addition to the apartment sale contract, and the installation price is also deposited separately from the sale price, and it is not the supply of services incidental to the purchaser's choice.

Related statutes

Article 106 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 373,240,920 against the Plaintiff on February 9, 2007 shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a company that was established on July 15, 1999 and operated a housing construction business, etc. with the trade name called ○○ Industrial Development (the trade name was changed to ○○○○○ Company on December 21, 2007) (the plaintiff was changed to ○○○○ Company on December 21, 2007) and completed the construction business registration under the Framework Act on Construction Project on July 29, 2005.

B. In the second half of 2005, the Plaintiff, ○○-dong 2, ○○○-dong 2, a national housing scale below 2005, performed the construction of balcony new construction works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) on the balcony apartment located in ○○-dong 943 (hereinafter “instant apartment”). The Plaintiff determined that the said construction works constitute national housing and construction services of the relevant housing, and reported the Defendant’s tax base of value-added tax on the second half of 2005, excluding the amount of revenue of the said construction works.

C. From September 7, 2006, the Director of the Gwangju Regional Tax Office decided that the service supplied separately from the apartment of this case is not subject to value-added tax exemption, and notified the Defendant of the correction notice of the Plaintiff’s value-added tax. Accordingly, on February 9, 2007, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that imposed value-added tax on the Plaintiff at KRW 373,240,920 for the second term portion of value-added tax on the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On August 31, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a collective construction contract with ○○ Construction (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Construction”) on the whole of the instant apartment construction including the instant construction. Unlike the existing apartment buildings, the instant apartment is at the same level as the floor height of the living room and balcony from the first construction stage so that no separate balcony expansion construction is required for the convenience of the occupants. The instant apartment is designed to facilitate the escape and side of the windows between the living room and balcony, which are at 35 eee-mail dwelling space or the balcony, so that it may not proceed simultaneously with the instant apartment sales price. Thus, the instant apartment sales price is included in the instant apartment sales price, and the instant construction, which is a national housing, shall be deemed to constitute the construction of the instant apartment, which is a national housing, or the supply of services that are essential to it, and thus, the instant apartment is unlawful to impose value-added tax and the value-added tax contrary thereto.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 106 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

C. Determination

(1) Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7839 of Dec. 31, 2005; hereinafter the same applies)

Article 106(1)4 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 106(4)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the value-added tax shall be exempted for the supply of housing construction services below national housing scale and below national housing scale by a person registered under the Framework Act on Construction Projects, etc. In order to promote housing construction below national housing scale by exempting the value-added tax on the construction services of national housing, thereby contributing to the stabilization of housing for ordinary people, etc.

(2) In this case, according to Gap's evidence 5, it is difficult for the plaintiff to enter into the above construction contract between ○○ Construction with ○○ Construction on August 31, 2003, with the construction cost of KRW 86,984,00,00 and the construction cost of the apartment of this case, but it is unclear whether the apartment of this case is included in the above construction contract. Even if the apartment of this case is included in the above construction contract, unlike the plaintiff's assertion, it is difficult to view that the construction cost of this case is naturally included in the apartment construction price of this case, or that the construction work of this case is necessarily incidental to the above construction of the apartment of this case, and it can not be seen that the apartment of this case was constructed separately from the apartment of this case's sales price of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's ○○ Construction Construction Contract's installation of apartment of this case's apartment of this case's ○○ Construction Contract's installation of apartment of this case's title No. 22.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow