Whether an input tax amount is related to the creation of a comprehensive resort complex which is a taxable business or tax-free land sales business;

It is reasonable to view that the sales business of real estate was conducted on the ground that the reported amount of revenue of the past corporation is the real estate sales price, the advertisement published in the daily newspaper is that the certificate of registration is issued to the investor and the final dividends are paid, and that there is no effort to develop the comprehensive resort complex.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 12 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 48,780,804 of corporate tax in 2003 against the Plaintiff and KRW 41,202,844 of value-added tax in 2003 and value-added tax in 116,690,245 of value-added tax in 2003 shall be revoked.

1. Grounds;

A. On May 31, 2001, the Plaintiff was a court that established a real estate development lease business, general recreation business, etc. as an objective business. On February 4, 2003, the Plaintiff purchased the land of the former ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 2692 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On December 31, 2006, the registration of the business was cancelled ex officio by the Defendant.

B. On August 28, 2003, the Defendant reported the corporate tax base, etc. for the business year of 2003 to ○○○○○○○○, Gangwon-do, 174,080,000,000 square meters of forest land of 14,389 square meters, and 7-○○, 258 square meters of forest land of 200,000 won in 20,000 in 200,000 in ○○○, 12,50,05 square meters of forest land of 12,000,000 won in 203,00,000 won in ○○○, 00,000 won in 200,000 won in total and 33,00,000,000 won in 20,000 won in 208,308,000 won in 208.

C. In addition, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of KRW 15,847,00 in the year 203, on the ground that the Plaintiff filed a return by deducting the input tax amount related to the tax-free business not subject to the VAT deduction from the output tax amount for the first and second years of 2003, on the grounds that the Plaintiff filed a return by deducting the input tax amount related to the tax-free business from the output tax amount for the second year of 2003, the total of KRW 115,847,00 in the second year of 203 (hereinafter “the instant input tax amount”) shall not be deducted from the output tax amount for the first year of 203, and on May 1, 2006, the Plaintiff imposed a disposition of imposition of KRW 116,690,245 in the second year of 203 (hereinafter “value-added tax”).

D. On August 30, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an objection against each of the above dispositions against the Defendant, but dismissed, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service filed a request for review on January 16, 2007. On May 30, 2007, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service partially accepted the Plaintiff’s assertion and rendered a decision that the Defendant would rectify the disposition imposing the value-added tax based on the result.

E. According to the above decision on July 6, 2007, the Defendant recognized the input tax amount of KRW 12,00,000 for the construction design service cost as the subject of deduction, and decided to reduce the value-added tax for the second period of 2003 to KRW 101,094,290, but did not notify the Plaintiff of the decision.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 through 3, Eul evidence 1-1 through 13, the fact inquiry results of this court's fact inquiry about ○○○ Japanese corporation, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the lawfulness of the disposition imposing corporate tax of this case

A. The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff, ○○○-gun, Gangwon-do, sold 14,389 square meters of forest land in KRW 74,080,00,000 to ○○-gun, ○○○○-gun, Gangwon-do. Although ○○-gun, ○○-gun, sold this amount to 174,080,000 won, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant erroneously calculated the Plaintiff’s sale price of forest land in KRW 174,080,000 for ○○-ri, ○○-gun, ○○-gun, ○○-gun, ○○-do, and the Defendant asserted that

(b) Related statutes;

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act

C. Determination

According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, it is recognized that on August 28, 2003, the plaintiff sold 116,053,000 square meters of forest land 14,389 square meters of forest land 7,00 in ○○○-gun, Gangwon-do, ○○○-do, ○○○○-do, ○○○-do, in ○○○○○-do, for 16,05,00 won, and the remaining 1/3 equity to ○○○ 58,00 won, respectively. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the sale price of forest land 7,00 square meters of ○○-ri, ○○-do, ○○-do, ○○-do, ○○-do, ○○-do, was merely 35

3. Determination on the lawfulness of the disposition imposing the value-added tax of this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The input tax amount of this case is about design expenses and advertising expenses incurred in creating a comprehensive resort complex to the real estate of this case. It was not possible for some investors to implement a comprehensive resort complex development project on the wind of provisional seizure and provisional registration with regard to the real estate of this case. Accordingly, in the situation that some of the real estate of this case can no longer proceed with a comprehensive resort complex development project due to its light of operating funds, the sale of some of the real estate of this case was made through voluntary auction. Thus, the input tax amount of this case is about a comprehensive resort complex development project, which is a taxable business, and it is not related to a land sale business, which is

(b) Related statutes;

Article 12 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

C. Determination

살피건대, 이 사건 매입세액이 과세사업인 종합휴양단지 조성사업에 관련된 것인지 아니면 면세사업인 이 사건 부동산의 분양사업에 관련된 것인지 여부가 쟁점이라고 할 것인바, 갑 제1호증, 을 제12 내지 13호증의 각 기재 및 이 법원의 주식회사 ○○일보사에 대한 사실조회 결과에 변론 존체의 취지를 종합하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들 즉, ① 법인등기부등본 목적사업에 부동산매매업을 포함하고 있는 원고가 이 사건 부동산을 고정자산이 아닌 재고자산으로 회계처리함으로써 이 사건 부동산을 판매대상인 상품으로 인식한 점, ② 원고가 2003년도 법인세 과세표준을 신고함에 있어 신고한 수입금액 1,505,000,000원 전액이 이 사건 부동산의 분양대금인 점, ③ 원고가 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 일간지에 게재한 광고는 투자자에게 등기필증을 교부하고 연 15.3%의 확정배당금을 지급하겠다는 내용인 점, ④ 원고가 이 사건 부동산에 종합휴양단지 조성사업을 추진하기 위하여 어떠한 노력을 하였다는 점에 대한 아무런 자료도 제시하지 못하고 있는 점, ⑤ 원고는 2001.5.28. 설립도니 후 ○○월드 주식회사, ○○시티 주식회사로 상호를 자주 변경하고, 대표이사와 본점소재지도 수차례 변경하였으며, 강원도 ○○군 ○○면 ○○○리 산7 외 2필지 86,152㎡를 매수한 후 이를 분할하여 전매한 전력이 있는 점 등ㅇㄹ 종합하여 보면, 원고는 이 사건 부동산에 종합휴양단지 조성사업을 하려고 한 것이 아니라 면세사업인 이 사건 부동산을 분양하는 사업을 한 것으로 봄이 상당하다.

Therefore, the input tax amount of this case is related to the sales business of the real estate of this case, which is a tax-free business, so the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.