Whether the construction expenses under the proviso of Article 49-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act include the repair expenses paid for the use after obtaining a gratuitous permit.

The proviso of Article 49-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the underground shopping district shall be deducted from the rental deposit the amount equivalent to the construction cost of the underground shopping district by granting a benefit from the exclusion of the rental deposit equivalent to the amount equivalent to the construction cost of the underground shopping district from the object of value-added tax, and thus, it appears to the purport of promoting the construction of the underground shopping district. Therefore, the amount equivalent to the construction cost referred to in the above Article is limited to the construction cost at the time of construction of the underground shopping district and donation

Enforcement Decree Article 49-2

Dongdaemun Underground Commercial Price Co., Ltd.

Head of the Tax Office;

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant revoked the disposition imposing value-added tax of KRW 1,354,740 for the first term, KRW 1,370 for the second term, KRW 1,373,100 for the second term, KRW 1,370,850 for the second term, KRW 1,40,580 for the second term, KRW 1,199,80 for the first term for the year 1988, KRW 613,160 for the second term.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. The plaintiff's 1. The plaintiff's 2. The construction expenses of the above 4. The 1. The 9. The 1. The 9. The 1. The 1.6th 5th 5th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 8th 6th 6th 8th 6th 8th 6th 96th 16th 96th 16th 96th 96th 86th 96th 96th 86th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 14th 96th 96th 96th 14th 96th 96th 96th 14th 96th 96th 14th 96th 14th 14th 96th 14th 14th 66th 3824th 3

According to Article 49-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Promotion of Construction of Underground Markets, when a business operator supplies real estate rental services and receives a lease deposit or a lease deposit, the tax base of value-added tax shall be calculated by deeming the interest on one-year maturity time deposit and the equivalent amount for the lease deposit as the income from rent. However, in exceptional cases where a person who bears the construction cost of underground passage belonging to the State or a local government obtains permission for occupation and use as an underground passage and leases it with the permission for occupation and use as an underground passage, the first free occupation and use should not be regarded as a lease deposit only between the first free occupation and use permit and the first free occupation permit. As such, it appears to the purport that the amount equivalent to the construction cost under the above Act should be deducted from the construction cost subject to value-added tax for a lease deposit corresponding to the construction cost equivalent to the underground price and thus, it is reasonable that the amount equivalent to the construction cost under the above Act should be included in the construction cost at the time of the construction of the underground price and it does not constitute a new repair charge for the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for objection is dismissed unfairly, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim So-ho (Presiding Judge)