The instant construction project independently provided by the Plaintiff shall not be deemed a service exempt from value-added tax.

국민주택 건설공사라는 주된 용역의 공급자가 아닌 원고가 QQ공사에게 제공한 이 사건 공사는 조세특례제한법 제106조 제1항 제4호로 부가가치세가 면제되는 부수용역이라고 볼 수 없음

Article 106 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2014Guhap5953 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AA Construction Corporation

Head of the tax office

June 4, 2015

June 18, 2015

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of the first value-added tax on July 10, 2013 against the Plaintiff and the imposition of the second value-added tax on January 2, 2008 on January 2, 2014, and each imposition of the second value-added tax on January 2, 2009, the first value-added tax ○○○○ in 2009, the second value-added tax ○○ in 2009, the second value-added tax ○ in 2010, the first value-added tax ○○ in 201, and the first value-added tax ○○ in 201 (excluding additional taxes) is revoked (excluding additional taxes).

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2004. 4.경 JJ지구(이하 '이 사건 사업지구'라 한다) 택지개발사업의 사업시행자인 QQ로부터 위 사업지구 택지조성공사(이하 '이 사건 공사'라 한다)를 수급하였는데, 이 사건 공사는 이 사건 사업지구 내 도로, 조경, 상하수도 설치공사를 그 내용으로 한다. 한편 이 사건 사업지구 중 QQ공사가 유상으로 공급하는 주택건설용지에는 주택법 제2조 제3호에서 정한 '국민주택'의 건설을 위하여 공급되는 부분이 포함되어 있다.

나. ○○시는 QQ공사가 시행하는 국민주택 건설용역사업에 대한 부가가치세 납부실태 및 개선방안에 대하여 검토한 결과, 부가가치세가 면제되는 국민주택건설용역에는 국민주택단지 외부에 제공된 도로, 공원, 시설녹지 등 무상공급 면적에 해당하는 용역 중 국민주택건설용지의 면적이 총 유상공급 면적에서 차지하는 비율(이하 '국민주택건설용지 비율'이라 한다)에 상응하는 부분도 포함되므로 이 부분에 해당하는 부가가치세도 면제된다는 결론을 내리고, 2007. 8.경 QQ공사에게 이와 같은 결론에 따라 기납부한 부가가치세는 경정청구를 통해 환급받고, 아직 부가가치세 상당액이 공사대금으로 지급되지 않은 국민주택 건설사업은 시공사와의 설계변경을 통해 공사대금 감액조치를 취하라고 지시하였다.

다. 이에 따라 원고는 2004년 제2기부터 2007년 제1기까지의 부가가치세에 관하여 수정신고 및 경정청구를 통해 추가납부하거나 환급받았고, 2007년 제2기부터는 위와 같은 방법으로 계산하여 면세용역의 공급에 해당하는 것으로 본 부분에 대해서는 QQ공사에게 '계산서'를 발행하였고, 나머지 부분에 대해서는 부가가치세법에서 정한 '세금계산서'를 발행하였으며, '계산서'를 발행한 부분에 대해서는 부가가치세를 신고하지 않았다.

라. ○○지방국세청장은 2013. 5.경 QQ공사에 대한 세무조사를 실시하여 '국민주택단지 조성과 직접 관련이 없는 단지 밖의 도로, 상하수도, 공원 등의 건설과 관련된 건설용역은 국민주택 건설용역에 해당하지 않으므로 부가가치세가 과세되어야 하나, QQ공사가 총 택지조성 면적을 국민주택단지조성 면적으로 안분한 부분을 면세로 인식하여 시공사들로부터 세금계산서가 아닌 계산서를 수취하였으므로 QQ공사에게 건설용역을 제공한 사업자에게 부가가치세를 과세하여야 한다'는 취지의 과세자료를 피고에게 통보하였다.

E. Accordingly, on July 10, 2013, the Defendant: (a) deemed the part corresponding to the construction site for national housing compared to the total supply area among the parts issued by the Plaintiff in relation to the instant construction project as exempt from value-added tax; and (b) deemed the remainder as subject of value-added tax; (c) on January 2, 2008, value-added tax ○○○○○○ (including additional tax 42,309,39,390) (including additional tax 32,79,480); (d) on January 2, 2008, value-added tax 2008 (including additional tax 16,847,480 won); (d) on the first-year value-added tax ○○ (including additional tax 27,534,120 won); and (d) on the first-year value-added tax 2009 (including additional tax 27,534,120 won); and (d) on the first-year value-added tax (including additional tax 166,5164,504).

F. The Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on January 29, 2014 regarding the instant disposition on July 10, 2013; and on April 7, 2014 regarding the remainder of the disposition, the Tax Tribunal revoked the additional tax portion among the instant disposition and decided to dismiss the remainder of the claim.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1, 2, 4, 5 (including each number)

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Even if the instant construction is performed outside a national housing complex, this is ultimately creating a common area outside the national housing complex for the lives of residents in the national housing complex, and it is inevitable to reflect it in the sale price, which is the proceeds from the supply of national housing, and thus constitutes construction services of national housing or services inevitably incidental thereto. Therefore, the value-added tax equivalent to the ratio of the site for the construction of national housing should be exempted in accordance with Article

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 106(1)4 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the value-added tax shall be exempted for the national housing prescribed by Presidential Decree and the construction services of such housing. Article 106(4)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the term “national housing prescribed by Presidential Decree and the construction services of such housing” means housing construction services below the scale of national housing supplied by a person registered under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Electrical Construction Business, Fire-Fighting Business Act, Fire-Fighting Act, Information and Communication Business Act, Housing Act, Sewerage Act, and Livestock Excreta Management and Utilization Act. Thus, the exemption from value-added tax under the same provision is an essential construction services, electrical construction services, fire-fighting services, etc. for the supply of national

Therefore, the tree planting construction work within a common area outside a national housing complex is not a supply of national housing itself or a construction service for the national housing itself, and the services provided by a construction business operator to perform the burden of providing the Si with tree planting construction work within other public areas or facilities instead of destroying trees in the course of building the site in question cannot be deemed as services necessarily incidental to the housing construction service (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu7040, Feb. 11, 1992).

2) Determination

Since the construction of housing sites outside the national housing complex in the instant project district, it is clear that the construction area of the J District constitutes approximately 37.3% of the construction area of the apartment housing in the entire area (648,032 square meters) and the remainder of the land is provided as roads, parks, facilities green areas, public facilities sites, etc., and the construction of housing site in the instant project district provided by the Plaintiff is a construction of housing sites outside the national housing complex. In addition, in light of the fact that the construction area of the national housing site in the instant project district is 604,136 square meters, the construction area of the national housing site is 37.3% of the total area (648,032 square meters), the construction area of the apartment housing in the instant project district is 241,346 square meters, and the construction area of the housing site in the instant project district is provided as roads, parks, green areas, etc., and the construction of housing site in this case provided by the Plaintiff is exempt from the construction area of the national housing (Article 4-2).

However, in light of the above construction details, the services provided by the Plaintiff outside the site for the construction of national housing in the instant project district can only be deemed as infrastructure construction works in the entire housing site development project district, and cannot be deemed as facilities, appurtenant facilities, or welfare facilities necessary for the construction of the national housing complex. This part of the construction cost is not directly reflected in the supply price of national housing, and it is difficult to view it as the supply of goods or services essential for the construction of national housing under Article 1(4) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same).

Even if there is room to view otherwise, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations should be interpreted in accordance with the law, barring any special circumstance, by blocking the requirements for taxation, non-taxation, or tax reduction or exemption, and it shall not be permitted to expand or analogically interpret without any justifiable reason. Thus, the scope of deeming that the supply of goods or services, which are essentially incidental to the supply of goods or services exempt from value-added tax pursuant to Article 12(3) of the former Value-Added Tax Act, is limited to only the supply of goods or services exempt from value-added tax, and only the supply of such goods or services, which are essentially incidental thereto, is limited to one’s transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 200Du7131, Mar. 15, 2001; Supreme Court Decision 2001Du4849, Nov. 8, 2002). The same applies to goods or services exempt from the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

앞서 인정한 사실에 변론 전체의 취지를 보태어 보면, 원고는 이 사건 사업지구에서 이 사건 공사만 수행하였을 뿐 국민주택 건설공사를 직접 수행하지는 않았고 오히려 다른 시공사들이 위 건설공사를 수행한 것으로 보이므로, 국민주택 건설공사라는 주된용역의 공급자가 아닌 원고가 독립적으로 QQ공사에게 제공한 이 사건 공사는조세특례제한법 제106조 제1항 제4호로 부가가치세가 면제되는 부수용역이라고 볼 수없다.

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the prior plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit to examine further.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.