(a) Whether the act of supplying goods to Seoul Special Metropolitan City after performing the repair work for the above land-based facilities is a supply of value-added tax, where the plaintiff, who had been engaged in the lease management business with the permission of donation and the permission of road occupancy and use, bears the construction expenses in accordance with an agreement with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and completed the repair work for the above land-based facilities, and the repair work part at the same time belongs to Seoul Special Metropolitan City, while the Seoul Special Metropolitan City has extended the occupancy and use period by exempting the Plaintiff from occupation fees, etc. of the road

(b) Whether the erroneous representation of the supply of services caused by the supply of goods becomes grounds for revocation in imposing value-added tax (negative);

C. In the case of paragraph (a) above, whether there exists an economic quid pro quo relationship between the Plaintiff’s donation of the part of the land bridge repair work and the exemption of fees for the occupation and use of the road and facilities

(d) The case holding that the non-taxation practice of value-added tax cannot be established in the case where a person other than an administrative agency installs public facilities and obtains permission for free use;

A. The Plaintiff, who was engaged in the lease management business of the above land-based shops by constructing the above land-based shops on the road and accepting permission for ten years from the date of donation to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and obtaining permission for the occupation and use of the above land-based shops, bears the construction expenses, and at the same time the repair work part belongs to Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall exempt the Plaintiff from the payment of the road occupation fees, etc. up to the amount equivalent to the above construction cost. Accordingly, if the repair work is completed and the period of occupation and use is extended, the Plaintiff’s supply to Seoul Special Metropolitan City by performing the repair work for the above land-based shops pursuant to the agreement with the Seoul Special Metropolitan

B. In imposing value-added tax, the mere fact that the supply of the service was erroneous in the imposition of value-added tax does not constitute a reason to revoke the said imposition.

C. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City’s act of having the Plaintiff perform the repair work of the above land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-

D. Even though there is no case where the value-added tax has been imposed for a long time after the enforcement of the Value-Added Tax Act on cases where a person, other than an administrative agency, obtains permission from the administrative agency for installing public facilities and obtaining permission for gratuitous use thereof, such circumstance alone cannot

(a)Article 1(3), 7(1), and 12(1)18 of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act; Articles 24(1) and 83(2) of the Urban Planning Act; Article 19(c) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 12(1)18 of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes;

(a)B. D. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu596 delivered on April 27, 1990 Ga. 90Nu6972 delivered on March 12, 1991 Ga. (b) Decision 89Nu3496 delivered on April 13, 1990 Ga. 90Nu6842 delivered on December 21, 1990

Hong New Development Company

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu5619 delivered on August 16, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

After October 13, 1970, the court below determined that the plaintiff 4,00 Cheongcheon-dong, Seoul and Cheongcheon-gu, constructed the above Cheongcheon-do road and permitted the occupation and use of roads on the road for ten (10) years, and that the above Cheongcheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City is responsible for the construction cost, and that the plaintiff's construction cost is attributed to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the above Gyeongbu-gu, which belongs to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall be exempted from the construction cost by offsetting the above construction cost as the amount equivalent to the above 1,380,500,00, and the construction cost of the 1,000 Do 1,000 Do 1,000 Do 1,000 Do 1,000 Do 1,000 Do 1,000 Do 1,000 Do 1,007.

In addition, even though there are no cases where value-added tax such as this case is imposed for a long time after the enforcement of the Value-Added Tax Act on the case where a person other than an administrative agency installs public facilities and obtains permission for gratuitous use from the administrative agency, as alleged by the plaintiff, such circumstance alone cannot be viewed as establishing non-taxation practices such as the plaintiff's assertion. Thus, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct and there is no

All arguments are without merit, and this appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)