Early High Court Decision 2015 medium 837 (20 April 20, 2015)

When the instant machinery is delivered to the Plaintiff, the time of its supply should be deemed to be the time of supply.

The construction of the machinery of this case is limited to the services incidental to the supply of goods, which is the main transaction, and the disposition of this case where the machinery of this case is delivered to the plaintiff is deemed to be the time of supply and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

revocation of revocation of imposition of value-added tax by the District Court 2015 Guhap829

IMOOO Co., Ltd.

O Head of tax office

December 13, 2016

on 17, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax ○○○○○○ on July 1, 2014 by the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 11, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a contract under which the Plaintiff would be supplied with the instant machine (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) from Gangwon-do ○○○○○○-gun ○○○○○○○○-gun 313, a corporation for the purpose of manufacturing concrete products, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○”). On June 11, 2008, the Plaintiff received the tax invoice of KRW ○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax invoice”) during the first period of supply supply in the first period of 2009, and received the input tax amount from the Plaintiff at the time of the first period of value-added tax declaration for the first period of 2009.

B. As a result of the corporate investigation into the Plaintiff, the Defendant deemed that the time of supply for the instant machinery falls under the second period of 2008, and on July 1, 2014, deducted the input tax amount related to the instant tax invoice, and imposed the value-added tax on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 13, 2015 on August 27, 2014, but was dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3-1, 4-1, Eul evidence Nos. 1-3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The block of a plant retaining wall is composed of the front and rear equipment, and the front and rear equipment is composed of all the front and rear equipment installed in the instant machinery and the Han River. The instant contract constitutes a mixed contract with goods and services, and thus, the time of supply of the instant machinery is deemed to be the time of supply. Therefore, since the supply of the instant machinery is completed on May 2009, when the production equipment was installed upon the completion of all of the installation of the instant machinery and the rear River Facilities, the supply time of the instant machinery is deemed to be the first installment in 2009, and the instant disposition based on the premise that the supply time of the instant machinery is the second installment in 208.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 9 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) 9

조는 재화와 용역의 공급시기를 규정하고 있는데, 이동이 필요한 재화의 경우에는 재화가 인도되는 때, 용역의 경우에는 역무가 제공되거나 재화・시설물 또는 권리가 사용되는 때를 그 공급시기로 보고 있다. 또한 구 부가가치세법 제1조 제4항은��주된 거래인 재화의 공급에 필수적으로 부수되는 재화 또는 용역의 공급은 주된 거래인 재화의 공급에 포함되고 주된 거래인 용역의 공급에 필수적으로 부수되는 재화 또는 용역의 공급은 주된 거래인 용역의 공급에 포함되는 것으로 본다��라고 규정하고, 구 부가가치세법 시행령(2013. 6. 28. 대통령령 제24638호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조는 위 규정에서 주된 거래인 재화 또는 용역의 공급에 포함되는 것으로 보는 재화 또는 용역으로 '당해 대가가 주된 거래인 재화 또는 용역의 공급대가에 통상적으로 포함되어 공급되는 재화 또는 용역', '거래의 관행으로 보아 통상적으로 주된 거래인 재화 또는 용역의 공급에 부수하여 공급되는 것으로 인정되는 재화 또는 용역' 등을 들고 있다.

As to the instant case, the following circumstances, which can be seen through the respective descriptions and images of evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 8-1, 2, 2, and 2, 4, and 5 of the evidence Nos. 8-2, 4, and 5, are as follows: ① The instant machine was supplied separately from ○○○; ② the rear equipment was supplied to the Plaintiff, respectively; ② even if the instant machine and the rear equipment were linked to the entire process, the said machine cannot be deemed as one of the instant machines; ③ The instant machine drawn up by the Plaintiff and ○○○.

The contract includes the contents of delivery, installation, and trial run, but there is no specific indication as to the installation of the post-control facilities. ④ In light of the fact that the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was equipped with the preparation conditions for production by completing installation of the machinery of this case around 2008 in the relevant civil litigation (Korean Government District Court 00 ○○○○○○○○○○), the machinery of this case and the post-control facilities of this case cannot be deemed as a single facility as a whole.

In addition, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of statements and arguments set forth in evidence Nos. 1-2 and 3-6 and 7 of the evidence Nos. 1-7, i.e., (i) the contract of June 11, 2008 (Article 2) concerning the machinery of this case after the Plaintiff arrived at the site, the Plaintiff shall pay the remainder to ○○○ upon the completion of 60 days after the Plaintiff’s arrival of the machinery of this case, regardless of the outcome of installation and trial operation; (ii) the Plaintiff shall pay heavy equipment, human resources and ancillary expenses necessary for loading and unloading goods; and (iii) the agreement of November 20, 2008 (Article 7) includes the obligation of the Plaintiff to install power-driven vessel input and connection works; and (iii) the installation of the machinery at the time and place the buyer wants to operate the machinery in the case of the machinery of this case is ordinarily included in the transaction, and it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s main supply of the machinery of this case as the goods of this case.

Therefore, the time when the instant machinery was delivered to the Plaintiff ought to be deemed the time of supply. Since the Plaintiff received the instant machinery from ○○ around October 2008, the time of supply for the instant machinery falls under the second period of 2008. Thus, the instant disposition is just and the allegation that the Plaintiff is a seafarer on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as there is no ground.