Where an implementer of an urban planning project, other than an administrative agency, contributes to local governments by completing underground passage and commercial facilities and acquires the right to free use such underground shopping districts, the standards for determining the time of supply for services subject to value-added tax.

Article 83(2) of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 6243 of Jan. 28, 200) provides that public facilities newly installed by a person other than an administrative agency upon authorization or permission of the relevant implementation plan shall gratuitously belong to the administrative agency in charge of managing such facilities. Thus, upon the implementation of an urban planning project, the ownership of land and facilities constituting the relevant public facilities shall be reverted directly to the State or a local government which directly manages such facilities at the time of completion of the project. At the time of completion of the project, the completion of the project shall be deemed as at the time of completion of the project. However, the determination of the completion of the project as at the time of completion of the project is based on a comprehensive determination of the completion of the project’s completion of the urban planning project as at the time of completion of the project’s completion of the project, not at the time of completion of the project’s completion of the project’s completion of the project’s completion of the project’s completion of the project’s completion of the project.

Article 83(2) of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 6243 of Jan. 28, 2000, repealed by Act No. 6655 of Feb. 4, 2002), Articles 1(3), 7(1), 9(2), 22 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 89Nu596 delivered on April 27, 1990 (Gong1990Sang, 1180) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu727 delivered on March 12, 1991 (Gong1991Sang, 1199), Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7272 delivered on April 26, 199 (191Sang, 1541), Supreme Court Decision 90Nu9247 delivered on August 27, 1991 (Gong191Ha, 2459), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu15308 delivered on March 12, 196 (Gong196Sang, 1298), Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da82909 delivered on April 15, 199, 209, Supreme Court Decision 209Da582989 delivered on August 29, 209)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

The Director of the National Tax Service

Daejeon High Court Decision 2000Nu2738 delivered on November 2, 2001

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below concluded that when the plaintiff entered into an agreement on the development of underground roads and commercial buildings as part of the urban planning project between 1,00 and 27 February 27, 1992, "the Convention on the Creation of Underground Markets and Commercial buildings" was to vest in the plaintiff's facility expenses and to vest in the city of 20 years after creating the underground passage and commercial facilities. The plaintiff agreed to grant the right to lease and the right to manage the above commercial facilities from 20 years in return for the investment of the plaintiff's facility expenses. The plaintiff entered into an agreement on the construction of the underground passage and the right to lease the above commercial facilities with the permission for the implementation of the urban planning project on March 192, 192 to the public building corporation by the contract owner, etc., and obtained the approval of the use as effective before the end of the 9,000 City/Do, it should be deemed that it was unlawful for the plaintiff to use the above facilities at its own expense at the time of completion and disposal.

2. Article 83(2) of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 6243 of Jan. 28, 200) provides that public facilities newly installed by a person other than an administrative agency upon authorization or permission for an implementation plan under the relevant provisions shall gratuitously belong to the administrative agency to manage the relevant facilities. Thus, upon the implementation of an urban planning project, if public facilities are installed, the ownership of the land and facilities constituting the relevant public facilities shall be directly and indirectly reverted to the State or a local government to manage such facilities at the same time as the completion of the project. At the time of completion of the project, the completion of the project shall be deemed to have completed the completion inspection (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da24897, Apr. 15, 199; Supreme Court Decision 98Da5161, Aug. 22, 200). 200; it is determined that the project operator’s right to receive value-added tax in return for the completion of the project constitutes a free use of the project.

Even according to the court below's findings, the plaintiff used commercial facilities from February 22, 1994 after obtaining approval for the use prior to completion of the underground passage, etc. of this case and appropriated all deposits for construction expenses. According to the records, the plaintiff had already been subject to electrical safety inspection, internal communication cable facilities completion inspection, sewage purification facilities completion inspection, fire fighting facilities completion inspection prior to the above date, and completed construction of a building from the Yanananananan City as of February 15, 1994, and obtained approval for use prior to completion after obtaining a completion inspection certificate under the Building Act. The plaintiff completed the registration prior to completion of the construction of the building as the owner of the aggregate building on the same date. The plaintiff continued to extend the period after obtaining the initial approval for use prior to completion of the building, but did not file an application for completion inspection, and the plaintiff's request for the extension of the use approval of the building facilities prior to completion of the building from June 25, 1998 to June 19, 195.

Therefore, this case's value-added tax due to the Plaintiff's supply of services shall belong to the first period of 1994. Thus, the disposition of this case is legitimate. However, the court below's judgment which determined otherwise is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the time of supply of services under the Value-Added Tax Act, which affected the conclusion of the remaining judgment. The ground for

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)