Whether a business operator who is exempted from value-added tax can be deemed to have registered a business under Article 5 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act where he/she has received a business registration certificate stating "for tax-exempt business operator"

The person liable for registration under Article 5 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act is the person liable for registration of the value-added tax and the person liable for registration has no obligation for registration. Therefore, the "registration under Article 5 (1)" under Article 17 (2) 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act refers to the business registration of the person liable for registration of the value-added tax, and the fact that the person is issued the registration right stating the "tax-exempt person" under Article 5 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act cannot be viewed as the registration

Articles 5 (1) and 17 (2) 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Attorney Lee Tae-hoon et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Head of Eastern Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu643 delivered on February 9, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The person liable for registration under Article 5 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act is the person liable for registration of the value-added tax and the person liable for registration is the person liable for registration of the value-added tax, so the registration under Article 5 (1) 5 of the same Act refers to the business registration of the person liable for registration of the value-added tax. For the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the registration under Article 5 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act cannot be deemed to have been made only on the ground that the plaintiff who was the person liable for registration of the value-added tax was issued the business registration certificate stating the "for the person liable for registration of the tax-added tax", and there is no

The issue is groundless.

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 on the bench.

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)