(a) Whether the service falls under Article 1 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act, but does not fall under the scope of supply of services under Article 7 of the same Act is subject to the taxation of value-added tax; and

(b) Whether the so-called Nowon-Ba (KNW-HW FE) is taxable as value-added tax;

(a) Even if any service and act fall under the scope of supply of services under Article 1 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, they shall not be subject to the assessment of value-added tax unless they fall under the scope of supply of services under Article 7 (1) of the same Act

B. The so-called Now-Ba (KNW-HW) refers to the technical knowledge, experience, or the integration of them necessary to prepare and actually apply any kind of technology helpful for industrial purposes independently or in combination. Thus, it constitutes services referred to in Article 1(1)1 and (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act. However, unlike the so-called publicly known technology or patent technology, it is sufficient for the original owner to use it as a full-time oil while the original owner maintains secret technical integrity, unlike the so-called publicly known technology or patent technology, it is limited to the use of it as a full-time oil by the user while the original owner maintains secret technical integrity. If it is disclosed or obtained a patent, it is not included in the scope of the supply of services as provided in Article 7(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act. Accordingly, it is not subject to taxation of Now-Ba (KNW-HE).

(a) Articles 1(1)1 and 1(3)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act;

Attorney Kim Sang-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of Mapo Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu347 delivered on January 24, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 1 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the supply of goods or services shall be subject to the imposition of value-added tax, and Article 1 (3) of the same Act provides that the supply of services means all services and activities other than goods that have property value, other than goods, and Article 7 (1) of the same Act provides that the supply of services shall be either provided with services or made use of goods, facilities or rights due to all contractual or legal grounds. Thus, even if services and activities fall under the scope of supply of services under Article 1 (1) of the same Act, if they fall under the scope of supply of services under Article 7 (1) of the same Act, they shall not be subject to the imposition of value-added tax

However, the so-called Now-Ba (KNW-HW) refers to the preparation of any kind of technology helpful for industrial purposes by alone or in combination, and the creation of such technical knowledge, experience, or integration. Thus, it constitutes services referred to in Article 1(1)1 and (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act. However, unlike the so-called publicly known and available technology that can be used and worked without any restriction by anyone widely known to the general public, it is not included in the scope of the supply of value-added tax, and it is not included in the scope of the service provided by Article 7(1)1 and (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the plaintiff's domestic corporation whose business purpose is manufacturing, processing, selling, etc. of glass is the manufacturing, manufacturing, and selling of glass, and that it does not constitute the supply of services under Article 7 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and ordered the revocation of the defendant's taxation disposition of this case by holding that it does not constitute the supply of services under the above Article 7 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the misapprehension of legal principles, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

The assertion is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Byung-su (Presiding Justice)