Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu 2243 ( October 10, 2017)

early 2015west 4997 ( December 29, 2015)

Management services provided by officetels are not duty-free services.

Since officetels is not a multi-family housing, general management services provided therefor are not tax-free services, and if management fees are not general management fees, they are not tax-free.

Article 106 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Exemption, etc. of Value-Added Tax)

Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Exemption of Value-Added Tax)

2017Nu4219 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Value-Added Tax

○○ Co., Ltd.

Defendant, Appellant

a) the Director of the Tax Office

September 20, 2017

November 1, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall be revoked on July 15, 2015; the part exceeding 27,682,185 won of the imposition of value-added tax for the first term of 2010; the part exceeding 4,147,582 won of the imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 2010; the part exceeding 18,931,257 won of the imposition of value-added tax for the first term of 2011; the part exceeding 5,694,903 won of the imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 204, 207, the part exceeding 13,79,539 won of the imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 205, the part exceeding 26,79,84 won of the imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 205, 207, the part exceeding 279, 294, 2061 of the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the second five years exceeding 208 won.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the first instance court's reasoning (as stated in the second instance court's ruling, the meaning of the terms used in this part is the same as the first instance court's ruling) except that the first instance court's "disposition of this case" in the fourth instance court's first instance judgment is "Disposition of this case". Thus, the court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the first instance court's reasoning (as stated in the second instance to fourth instance).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where "the disposition of this case" in Part 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "the disposition of this case" as "the disposition of this case", and therefore, it is also accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 22052, Feb. 18, 2010, “Presidential Decree No. 22052, Feb. 18, 2010” in Part 6, 3, 2010, shall be read as “Presidential Decree No. 22351, Aug.

○ 6. The 7th page " will be deleted."

○ 7.Otel No. 20 of the seventh floor is to add “the 3 to the 15th floor” following:

○ 8. The officetel of the 1st place is to add “all” to:

○○ 8. 2 and 3. The following images are added to “the results of inquiries to the President of the Korea Electric Power Corporation and the President of the Korea Electric Power Corporation.”

The ○ 8th parallel 5 to 9 are as follows.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion on the premise that the instant officetel falls under multi-family housing (or studio-type housing included in multi-family housing) is without merit without further review.

Even if some of the 3 to 15 stories of this case were actually used for residential purpose, and the part used for the 15 stories of this case constitutes multi-family housing under subparagraph 2 of attached Table 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, the burden of proof regarding the requirements for reduction or exemption of value-added tax exists on the taxpayer who asserts the grounds for such reduction or exemption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du7830, Oct. 23, 2008). ② However, it is difficult to specify the amount of management fee paid for the 16th floor only by the evidence submitted by the plaintiff as to the management fee of this case. ③ In addition, considering the following circumstances, the 16th evidence, Gap evidence 17-1, and Eul evidence 18-1, the management fee of this case can not be seen as the management fee of this case which is included in the 4th officetel management service contract of this case, and the plaintiff can not be seen as the specific management fee of this case, which is included in the management fee of this case.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion does not appear to be any mother, and thus, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.