Cho Jae-2017-China-1277 ( September 21, 2017)

Whether the use in the construction permit or public register is exempt from the value-added tax of officetels;

The issue of whether the use of the building constitutes "supply of housing smaller than the scale of national housing under the Housing Act, which is a tax-exempt requirement prescribed by the Ordinance of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act" shall be limited to a building constructed for the purpose of the housing with the permission

Article 106(1)4 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2017Guhap5446 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

소@@ 외4

000 director of the tax office

September 13, 2018

November 29, 2018

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

Each value-added tax (including additional tax) specified in the attached Form No. 1 written by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs

The cancellation shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. New construction and sale of officetels by the plaintiffs

1) 원고 소@@

원고 소@@은 2013. 8. 5. @@@@@건설(사업자등록번호: ***-**-*****)이라는 상호로 주택신축판매업 사업자등록을 하고, 2014. 3.경 @@ @@구 @@동 @@@-@@ 대343.1㎡ 지상에 '####'라는 명칭으로 지하 1층, 지상 10층 규모의 집합건물(공동주택 22세대, 오피스텔 12호)을 신축하여 2014년 제1기 부가가치세 과세기간에 위 오피스텔을 분양하였다.

원고 소@@은 2014. 3. 5. #####건설(사업자등록번호: ***-**-*****)이라는 상호로 주택신축판매업 사업자등록을 하고, 2014. 7.경 @@ @@구 @@동 @@@-@@ 대673.6㎡ 지상에 '####'라는 명칭으로 지하 1층, 지상 10층 규모의 집합건물(오피스텔 45호)을 신축하여 2014년 제2기 부가가치세 과세기간에 위 오피스텔을 분양하다.

2) 원고 소@@, 김@@

원고 소@@, 김@@는 2013. 6. 5. ##건설(사업자등록번호: ***-**-*****)이라는상호로 주택신축판매업 사업자등록을 하고, 2013. 12.경 @@ @@구 @@동 @@@-@@대 336.3㎡ 지상에 '####'라는 명칭으로 지하 1층, 지상 10층 규모의 집합건물(공동주택 22세대, 오피스텔 12호)을 신축하여 2014년 제1기 부가가치세 과세기간에 위오피스텔을 분양하였다.

3) Plaintiffs Kim*, Kim- per cent

원고 김**, 김%%은 2014. 7. 3. ######건설(사업자등록번호: ***-**-*****)이라는 상호로 주택신축판매업 사업자등록을 하고, 2015. 1.경 @@ @@구 @@동 @@@-@ 대 590.8㎡ 지상에 '####'이라는 명칭으로 지하 1층, 지상 14층 규모의 집합건물(공동주택 50세대, 오피스텔 26호)을 신축하여 2015년 제1기 부가가치세 과세기간에 위 오피스텔을 분양하였다.

4) 원고 김%%, 노@@

원고 김%%, 노@@는 2014. 11. 3. ######건설(사업자등록번호: ***-**-*****)이라는 상호로 주택신축판매업 사업자등록을 하고, 2015. 4.경 @@ @@구 @@동@@@-@@ 대 161.7㎡, 같은 동 @@@-@@ 대 343.8㎡ 지상에 '####'이라는 명칭으로 지하 1층, 지상 14층 규모의 집합건물(공동주택 26세대, 오피스텔 39호)을 신축하여2015년 제1기 및 제2기 부가가치세 과세기간에 위 오피스텔을 분양하였다(이하 원고들이 신축하여 분양한 위 오피스텔을 통틀어 '이 사건 오피스텔'이라 한다).

B. Plaintiffs’ failure to report value added tax and Defendant’s imposition of value added tax

1) 원고들은 이 사건 오피스텔이 1세대당 주거전용면적이 85㎡ 이하인 국민주택에 해당하므로 이 사건 오피스텔 공급에 대하여 조세특례제한법 제106조 제1항 제4호(이하 '이 사건 면제규정'이라 한다)에 따라 부가가치세가 면제된다는 이유로 이 사건 오피스텔 공급에 대한 부가가치세 신고(원고 소@@은 2014년 제1기 및 제2기 부가가치세 신고, 원고 김@@는 2014년 제1기 부가가치세 신고, 원고 김**는 2015년 제1기 부가가치세 신고, 원고 김%%은 2015년 제1기 및 제2기 부가가치세 신고, 원고 노@@는 2015년 제1기 및 제2기 부가가치세 신고)를 하지 않았다.

2) As a result of conducting a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiffs from September 1, 2016 to October 27, 2016, the Director of the Central Regional Tax Office: (a) notified the Defendant that the instant officetel supply does not constitute national housing under the instant exemption provision, deeming that the instant officetel supply is not subject to value-added tax exemption; and (b) notified the Defendant of the imposition of value-added tax accordingly.

3) On December 1, 2016, the Defendant issued a revised and notified each of the value-added taxes (including additional taxes) on the grounds that the instant officetel supply is not subject to value-added tax exemption on the grounds that the instant officetel supply is not subject to value-added tax exemption (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

In order to meet the requirements for the building permit under the Building Act, the instant officetel is merely a building permit for business facilities (offices). From the beginning, it is designed and constructed for a residential purpose with a room, kitchen, living room, bathing room, floor heating system, etc., and falls under substantial housing, such as a residential unit, which is sold for residential purpose and used for residential purpose by occupants. As such, the instant officetel constitutes a national housing prescribed by Presidential Decree, which is not more than 85 square meters in a residential area per household, and the supply of the instant officetel constitutes the object of value-added tax exemption, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

The instant provision and Articles 106(4)1 and 51-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provide that one of the objects of the exemption from value-added tax is "supply of housing below the scale of national housing under the Housing Act". Article 2 subparag. 3 of the former Housing Act (wholly amended by Act No. 13805, Jan. 19, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "national housing scale is not more than 85 square meters per house or household (the area of Eup or Myeon, other than the Seoul Metropolitan area under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act, is not more than 10 square meters per house or household." Article 2 of the former Housing Act separates housing from the whole or part of a building with a structure of independent residence for a long time and its appurtenant land [Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, which is one of subparagraph 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, and separates housing and its appurtenant land from subparagraph 14].

(4) The scope of "house" under the provisions of the Housing Act should be interpreted in accordance with the purport and purpose of the provision, and the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall not be permitted in accordance with the law, unless there are special circumstances. In particular, it conforms with the principle of fair taxation to the effect that it is difficult to objectively interpret the concept of "commercial housing" as one of the requirements for exemption of value-added tax, because an officetel is one of the objects of exemption of value-added tax under the Housing Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du21242, Feb. 14, 2008) and an officetel is one of the objects of exemption of value-added tax, and thus, it can only be objectively interpreted that the area of the housing subject to exemption of value-added tax should be used for a specific residential purpose because it is difficult to view that the area of the housing subject to exemption of value-added tax would be used for the same purpose as the area of the housing subject to exemption of value-added tax, regardless of the size of the housing.

Therefore, since the supply of the instant officetels does not fall under the supply of housing smaller than national housing scale under the Housing Act, which is subject to the exemption of value-added tax as stipulated in the instant exemption provision, the instant disposition is lawful, deeming that the instant officetel supply is not subject to value-added tax exemption.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.