District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-7225 (Law No. 28, 2015)

The balcony expansion construction works for national housing scale apartment shall be subject to issuance of tax invoices.

The balcony expansion construction of a national housing scale apartment shall not constitute a business similar to the residential building supply business under subparagraph 10 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act, which is either impossible or substantially difficult to issue

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

Seoul High Court-2015-Nu-45269 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax.

AAAAA

O Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Guhap7225 Decided October 28, 2015

on October 015, 201

October 06, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and each disposition of imposition in the same list of additional taxes on the defendant's imposition of each value-added tax on the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "instant disposition") is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as follows, except for adding the judgment on the plaintiff’s assertion to the court of first instance as stated in the preceding part of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and this is cited in accordance with the reasoning for the court of first instance.

2. The addition of judgment;

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s business of supplying the instant service does not fall under “the business of supplying a residential building” under Article 25-2 subparag. 3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 269, Feb. 28, 2012; hereinafter the same) but falls under “a business similar to the residential building supply business, which is either impossible or substantially difficult to issue a tax invoice.” Therefore, the Plaintiff may issue a receipt instead of the tax invoice to the buyer to whom the instant service was supplied. As such, the penalty tax on the ground that the tax invoice was not issued in the instant disposition was unlawful.

Article 25-2 (Scope of Business Issuing Receipt) Item 10 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "any other business similar to subparagraphs 1 through 9, for which the issuance of tax invoice is impossible or considerably difficult," (Article 25-2 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 269 of Feb. 28, 2012). However, Article 53 (2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "if a person is not a business operator, he/she may issue a tax invoice by stating the address, name and resident registration number of the person who is supplied with the service." Since the plaintiff is not aware of the address, name and resident registration number of the buyer, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff did not have prepared to issue the tax invoice to the buyer, it is difficult to accept the plaintiff's assertion that the business of this case constitutes a business similar to that of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be justified in accordance with this conclusion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.