Seoul High Court 2009Nu19009 ( December 16, 2009)

Early High Court Decision 2007Du1236 (Law No. 8630, 2008)

The purport of not allowing the waiver of tax exemption for the services that are not provided for in the Enforcement Decree for the waiver of tax exemption;

Article 47 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act does not allow the waiver of tax exemption and registration procedures for the housing lease services. It is effective because it does not go beyond the scope of delegation under Article 12 (4) of the Value-Added Tax Act.

Article 12 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 47 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

2010Du1682 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Value-Added Tax

EAA

Head of Ansan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu19009 Decided December 16, 2009

May 10, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 12 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 915, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that "any enterpriser may be exempted from value-added taxes under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree of Article 11 as the supply of goods or services exempt from value-added taxes under paragraph (1) and the supply of goods or services under paragraph (1) 11 and 16 may not be exempted from value-added taxes under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree." Article 47 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20626, Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act") provides that the scope of the waiver of tax-added taxes under Article 12 (1) of the Act shall be limited to the lease of such goods or services to the head of the competent tax office without delay, stating that the provision of value-added tax shall be exempted under Article 12 of the Act.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

If an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall no longer become void, and no longer exist, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Du5317, Sept. 28, 2006; 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 2010). The lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant revoked ex officio the part of the disposition of imposition against the Defendant at the first instance court (the part exceeding KRW 00,000, among the value-added tax for the second period, 2005) that the Defendant lost at the lower court, and determined that the part seeking revocation among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as it becomes null and void. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the record, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable. It did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the benefit of lawsuit, as otherwise alleged in the ground for appeal.

3. Conclusion

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.