Article 48-2 (3) proviso of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act shall apply.

Article 13(5) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the proviso of Article 48-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that when an entrepreneur supplies land and a building fixed on the land, the value of the building subject to value-added tax is not divided into the supply value of the land subject to value-added tax and the supply value of the land subject to non-taxation so that both values are unclear, the special provision to calculate the supply value of the building subject to taxation is not applicable in light

Article 13(5) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 48-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree thereof

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu229 Decided November 25, 1986

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu717 decided August 21, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that when the plaintiff filed a return of value-added tax under the commercial building of this case, it is reasonable to distinguish between the value of the building that is its tax base and the value of the building that is not its object of taxation without any basis, and that there is a lack of rationality in calculating the value of the building, the defendant calculated the value of the building by applying the computed calculation method based on the taxation standards of the land and the building under the proviso of Article 21(2) and Article 13(5) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the proviso of Article 48-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. However, in order to deny the plaintiff's final return and to correct the value-added tax, the court below erred by presenting new evidentiary documents presented by the plaintiff at the time of the final return and conducting an investigation, and thereby, it is not clear that the actual value of the building of the building of this case and the value of the building of this case, which is the object of imposition No. 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, even if it was submitted by the defendant. 6.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)