Jeonju District Court 2008Guhap2382 (No. 22, 2009)

National High Court Decision 2007 Mine5323 (Law No. 24, 2008)

Whether the zero tax rate is applied when a local self-organization fails to newly construct social indirect facilities after concluding an agreement.

Under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the zero-rate tax rate for social indirect facilities is not applied to all cases of supplying facilities corresponding to social overhead capital facilities by means of donation, but is applied only to cases where a project implementer prescribed by the Private Investment Act supplies infrastructure under the same Act.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax for the second period of September 18, 2007 against the plaintiff on September 18, 2005 shall be revoked.

1. The issues of the instant case and the judgment of the first instance court

The key issue of this case is whether the Plaintiff constructed ○○○ Video Telecommunications Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “facilities in this case”) and donated in arrears to △△-gun constitutes subject to the zero-rate Tax under Article 105(1)3-2 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and whether the instant facilities in this case are subject to the zero-rate Tax under Article 105(1)3-2 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and whether the Plaintiff’s exclusive preferential right to use the said facilities and sites is subject to taxation under Article 1(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, namely, the supply of goods or services.

The first instance court held that ① the construction of the instant facilities at the time of the completion of the agreement entered into with the Governor of Jeollabuk-gun and Jeollabuk-do, and that the Plaintiff shall have the exclusive right to use the said facilities during the period of the agreement. The Plaintiff constructed the instant facilities with the authority to execute the AAB and donated them to △-gun, and then recognized the exclusive right to use the said facilities within the period of the agreement. However, according to the content of the agreement, the Plaintiff (AABB) did not have the exclusive right to use the facilities within the scope of the agreement with the Governor of Jeollabuk-gun-gun and the Governor of the Province. The Plaintiff did not have the exclusive right to use the facilities within the scope of the agreement with the Governor of the Province. The Plaintiff did not have the right to use the facilities within the scope of the agreement with the Governor of the Province and the Governor of the Province. The Plaintiff did not have the exclusive right to use the facilities within the scope of Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Convention with the Governor of the Province.

2. Quotation and conclusion of the judgment of the first instance;

Therefore, the reason why this Court is used for this case is the same as the reason for the first instance judgment, except for the case's case number of 98Nu596 which is the fifth 18th th th 18th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff's appeal.