It is necessary to issue a tax invoice for donated facilities in arrears and to report the zero-rate tax base.

Even if there is no value-added tax payable due to the zero tax rate applied to the value-added tax as for the supply of parking lot facilities, such circumstance alone cannot be viewed as a special reason to interpret that the obligation to deliver a tax certificate is exempted to the supplier.

Article 22 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

Article 64 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 57,716,00 for non-delivery of the tax invoice against the Plaintiff on May 8, 2007 and KRW 28,858,00 for additional tax assessment of the zero-rate tax base shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts may be acknowledged either as a dispute between the parties or as a whole by taking into account the respective descriptions of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4, 5, 9, and 11 and the whole purport of pleadings:

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation operating a parking lot business, etc., entered into an agreement with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the Plaintiff to newly construct a parking lot and related facilities on the ○○○-dong 230-○○ 1,757 square meters and to contribute them to Seoul Special Metropolitan City and to use them for 20 years. In addition, on the above land, the Plaintiff newly constructed a parking lot and related facilities of the 1st floor, the 6th floor, the 6th floor, the 6, the total floor area of 6,565.36 square meters (hereinafter the instant parking lot facilities) on October 13, 2003, and donated them to Seoul Special Metropolitan City (the instant parking lot facilities in its name on January 7, 2004), and did not file a value-added tax return with the tax authority, and did not issue a tax invoice to Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

B. On May 8, 2007, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 86,574,00 in total, including the additional tax on non-delivery of the tax invoice, KRW 57,716,00, KRW 28,858,00, and the additional tax on non-performance of the zero-rate tax base return, KRW 203 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On July 17, 2007, the Plaintiff appealed to the Board of Audit and Inspection, but was dismissed on March 27, 2008.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

이 사건 주차장 시설과 같은 건축물을 공급하는 경우에 과세관청은 부동산등기법이나 부동산등기특별조치법에 이ㅡ하여 등기소나 검안관청으로부터 거래자료를 송부받아 그 거래내용을 파악하고 관리할 수 있는 방도를 법적으로 확보하고 있는 점, 이 사건 주차장 시설의 공급은 부가가치세에 있어서 영의 세율이 적용되는 거래인 점 등에 비추어 이 사건 부과처분은 과잉금지의 원칙에 위배되어 위법하다.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 22 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

Article 64 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

2. Determination

1) As to the portion of additional tax on non-delivery of the tax invoice

Article 22 (2) 1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7007 of Dec. 30, 2003) provides that where an entrepreneur who is a juristic person fails to supply goods or services and to issue a tax invoice, an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the value of the supply shall be added to the payable tax amount or deducted from the refundable tax amount. Even if there is no value-added tax applied to the value-added tax, such as the supply of facilities in the instant parking lot, there is no special circumstance to interpret that the obligation to deliver a tax invoice is exempted, notwithstanding the express provision. Under the current value-added tax system under the former Value-Added Tax Act, the basis for its operation is to realize the function of the tax invoice as input tax deduction and taxation data, thereby establishing a basis for transaction normalization and tax base, the legislative purpose of which is to establish it, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the imposition of additional tax as a sanction on such non-delivery of the tax invoice is significantly unfavorable compared to the public interest, or that it violates the principle of excessive prohibition or excessive violation of duty.

Meanwhile, in light of the fact that the instant parking lot facility was registered for preservation of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff and the registration for preservation of ownership was completed in the name of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, not in the name of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the tax authority cannot be deemed to have known or easily understood the details of the transaction, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and the Supreme Court Decision 200312820 Decided the grounds for the Plaintiff’s assertion concerning the issue of imposing additional tax on non-delivery of invoice under the Corporate Tax Act while supplying real estate, such as land and building, and thus, the additional tax on non-delivery of invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act that differs from the legislative purpose of the Corporate Tax Act

2) As to additional tax returns on zero tax base

Article 22 (6) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142 of Dec. 30, 2006) provides that "the tax base to which the zero-rate tax is applied as the object of the imposition of the incomplete return of the zero-rate tax base shall be the object of the penalty tax." The supply of the instant parking lot facilities is subject to zero-rate tax rate in addition to the value-added tax pursuant to Article 105 (1) 3-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7845 of Jan. 2, 2006). Thus, the failure of the Plaintiff to file a return on the supply of the instant parking lot facilities constitutes a case where the zero-rate tax base under Article 22 (6) of the former Value-Adde

The Plaintiff’s additional tax is not allowed due to the same reason as the case of the additional tax on the issuance of the tax invoice as seen earlier. However, this part of the additional tax is not in violation of the excessive prohibition principle.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

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