Whether the price received for the services provided for forest tending projects pursuant to the contract for forest projects is exempt from tax;

Since a contract for forest project is concluded and receives compensation for conducting the project of this case as a forest project by providing one's own services, it is subject to value-added tax and cannot be deemed as a supply transaction of forest products or services incidental to the supply of forest products.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on June 2, 2008 of KRW 18,676,560 in 2003, KRW 2,383,200 in 204, KRW 23,619,040 in 205, KRW 40,528,590 in 2005, and KRW 20,360,200 in 206, and KRW 58,90 in 206 in 2006.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a corporation business operator (business operator registration number omitted) who started business on February 1, 2001 with the business type "forestation, forestation, deforestation, and prevention of forest diseases and pests, etc." and was engaged in forest tending business, etc. (hereinafter "the project in this case") according to the forest project contract entered into with nutrition group during the second taxable period of February 2003, 2004, and January 1, 2005 through February 2006, the amount received from nutrition group is exempted from value-added tax, and the account statement under Article 163 of the Income Tax Act was not issued and the value-added tax was not reported.

B. The defendant, while the business of this case is subject to value added tax, is the plaintiff's nutrition group.

On June 2, 2008, the price for supply received from each of the above taxation periods divided into 1.1 (107,127,272 won for each of the above taxation periods, 15,00,000 won for the first period of February 2003, 171 minute 159,63,636 won for the first period of January 2005, 271 minute 284,590,909 won for the first period of January 2006, 148,636,363 won for the second period of 206 and 448,080,00 won for the second period of February 2, 2006, 205, 2005, 206, 3605 won for the second period of 205, 207, 2005 won for the second period of 2005, 2005 won for the second period of value-added tax base.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on July 17, 2008, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the said request on October 22, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 14 through 19, 22, 23, 34 through 51, Gap evidence No. 2, Gap evidence No. 3-1, Gap evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since the instant project is a project that is naturally incidental to the supply of services related to forest products and is exempt from value-added tax, value-added tax on the instant project is levied.

The instant disposition is unlawful.

(2) On the premise that the instant project is subject to VAT exemption at the time of the instant contract

Since the contract was concluded and the public opinion expressed that the project of this case constitutes a tax-free project by failing to impose taxes for several years on the project of this case, the disposition of this case is unlawful as it violates the principle of good faith and the principle of protection of trust.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 1 (Taxable Objects)

Article 2 (Taxpayer of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 3 (Taxable Period)

Article 7 (Supply of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 12 (Exemption from Value-Added Tax)

Article 14 (Tax Rate of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 3 (Scope of Incidental Goods or Services)

Article 28 (Scope of Unprocessed Food, etc.)

Article 15 (Good Faith and Fidelity of Framework Act on National Taxes)

Article 163 (Preparation, Delivery, etc. of Account Statement)

C. Determination

(1) Whether the instant business is subject to value added tax

Articles 1, 2, and 7 of the Value-Added Tax Act impose value-added tax on the supply transaction of goods or services. The taxpayer is an independent supplier of goods or services for business purposes. The supply of services is provided for services or made use of goods, facilities, or rights due to all contractual or legal grounds, and the supply of goods or services, which is the main transaction, is deemed to be included in the supply of goods or services. Article 12 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that value-added tax shall be exempted for the supply of forest products.

(B) On the instant case, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff is a corporate entity established for the purpose of forest project, such as afforestation, forestation, and natural recreation forest development project, and the Plaintiff entered into a contract for forest project with the nutrition group, which is the place of the order, and provided its services and received the price therefor from the Nutrition. Therefore, the instant project is supplied with services under Article 7 of the Value-Added Tax

A transaction is subject to value-added tax.

In addition, the project of this case is not a transaction of supplying goods such as forest products, but forest products.

Since it does not fall under the supply of services essential to supply and the value-added tax is exempted pursuant to Article 12(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(2) Whether the principle of trust and good faith and the principle of trust protection are violated

Inasmuch as nutrition group concluded a contract on the premise that the instant project is subject to value-added tax exemption, or that the Defendant did not impose tax on the instant project for several years, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant issued a statement of opinion that the instant project constitutes a tax-free project, and there is no evidence to support that the Defendant issued a public statement of opinion that the instant project constitutes a tax-free project, and there is no reason to support this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.