Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap13799 ( October 21, 2015)

Seocho 2014west 1011 (Law No. 24, 2014)

In the case of a difference between the service supplier of the Chapter and the food supplier, the duty-free provision shall not apply to the provision of food services.

(as in the judgment of the first instance court) In the case of a food supplier different from that of the service supplier in the Chapter, there is a difficulty in deeming that there is a reasonable ground to treat food supply services as exempt goods or services even in the case of a transaction of incidental goods or services by a separate service provider.

Article 12 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

2015Nu46972 Additional note and revocation of disposition

EA and 1

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap13799 decided October 21, 2015

oly 2015.107

oly 28, 2015

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of the value-added tax for the second period of 208 against the plaintiff Lee Dong on August 5, 2013, 2009, 00 won of value-added tax for the first period of 209, 2009, 00 won of value-added tax for the second period of 209, 2010, 00 won of value-added tax for the second period of 2010, 00 won of value-added tax for the second period of 2010, 00 won of value-added tax for the second period of 201, 00 won of value-added tax for the second period of 201, 00 won of value-added tax for the second period of 201, and 0 won of value-added tax for the second period of 201, respectively, is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition or dismissal of part of the judgment of the first instance as stated in the following Paragraph (2). Thus, this Court cited it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. A part concerning addition or height;

○ The following shall be added subsequent to the 5th page 18 to 19.

In particular, the above judgment is merely a determination of the argument that there should be a practice of transaction between a principal supplier of funeral services and a supplier of food services, which is an incidental service, and it cannot be interpreted to the effect that “if a separate business entity independently supplies food and drink, it may be exempted from value-added tax by deeming it as the supply of incidental services,” on the ground of the above judgment.

○ The 5th parallel 20 to 6th parallels are as follows.

The purpose of legislation under Article 12 (1) 5 of the former Value-Added Tax Act and Article 29 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, even though the legislative intent of Article 12 (1) 5 of the former Value-Added Tax Act and Article 29 (1) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is to relax the burden of funeral awareness in terms of national welfare, it can be considerably achieved through the method of exempting the value-added tax on funeral services and their incidental services provided by the same business operator, and the legislators cannot be deemed to have enacted the above provisions in the intention of exempting all business operators related to funeral services from value-added tax by expanding the scope of their application without any condition. Therefore, even if the burden of consumers is somewhat increased due to the taxation of the service of this case, it is only the result of deciding to entrust other business operators with the provision of food incidental to funeral services provided by the funeral home business operator, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it violates the legislative intent of the former Value-Adde

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and all appeals of the plaintiffs are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.