Whether the Green Voting Corporation is exempt from the duty to issue tax invoices because it falls under the residential building supply business.

The issuance of tax invoices is not exempted for the plaintiff, since the issuance of tax invoices is impossible or considerably difficult for the business of supplying residential buildings and similar business.

Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (Article 57 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act) No. 17 of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act on exemption from the duty to issue tax invoices

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

In comparison with the records of this case and the judgment of the court below, the allegation in the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted in accordance with Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed in accordance with Article 5 of the same Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Seoul High Court 2007Nu25024 (No. 18, 2008)

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts cited or added in the following 2.2. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

A. On the fourth sentence of the first instance judgment, the first instance court added "(amended by Act No. 8142 of Dec. 30, 2006)," "(amended by Presidential Decree No. 18626 of Dec. 31, 2004)," "(amended by Presidential Decree No. 18626 of Dec. 31, 2004)," and "(amended by Presidential Decree No. 1930 of Feb. 9, 2006)" to "as of Feb. 7, 2006."

B. In addition to the 7th chapter 14, the term "not only is taken place" is as follows: "The residential building supply business refers to the industrial activities of constructing, selling and selling residential buildings by entrusting a construction business to a construction business rather than directly performing construction activities (Classification No. 70121); the Plaintiff's original construction business, etc. is classified as a construction business (Classification No. 46422); thus, it cannot be viewed as a residential building supply business; otherwise, it cannot be viewed as a business of supplying residential buildings; on the other hand, the Plaintiff's act of installing a ready-mix bath and a ready-mix bath provided by the Plaintiff constitutes a residential building supply business, or it is impossible or considerably difficult to issue a tax invoice, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it differently."

C. From the last 7th page to the 8th page 5, the Plaintiff’s second argument is examined.

According to Articles 32(1) and 32-2(1) and (3) of the Act, Articles 57(2), 79-2(1) and (3), and 80(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and subparagraphs 3 and 9 of Article 25-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, where a business operator (a business operator who receives a supply shall issue a tax invoice instead of a receipt, if the business operator presents a business registration certificate and requests the issuance of a tax invoice) who provides goods or services to consumers, is unable or substantially difficult, among general taxable persons, to deliver a credit card sales slip, he shall not issue a tax invoice. Thus, since the plaintiff's above assertion that the business falls under the above business does not constitute a business where the issuance of a tax invoice is impossible or substantially difficult, the plaintiff's above assertion is groundless."

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Suwon District Court 2006Guhap10192 (29 August 29, 2007) Main Issues

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was a corporation established for the purpose of the Changho Construction Business and the Chairman’s Business, the passenger voting time and the hold wholesale business, the bio-mixed business, and the business of manufacturing tar for construction, upon receiving orders from the apartment occupants newly built between the business year 200 to the business year 2004, and installed the Bluininium voting time and the bio-mixed bath tank with the total construction cost of 5,449,552,00 won (hereinafter “instant installation cost”) without issuing a tax invoice for the installation cost, and filed a value-added tax return as a receipt or credit card sales slip on behalf of the Plaintiff.

B. On October 14, 2005, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 164,189,830 as value-added tax by adding the additional tax to the value-added tax on the installation cost of this case, on the ground that the Plaintiff does not constitute a business operator eligible to deliver receipts, credit card sales slip, etc. instead of the tax invoice.

C. On December 27, 2005, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the portion of the total amount of KRW 85,773,93 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) of the amount of value-added tax imposed on the Defendant in the disposition of correction and notice, but was dismissed by the Defendant on January 19, 2006, and again requested the National Tax Tribunal for a trial on March 7, 2006, but was dismissed by the National Tax Tribunal on September 8, 2006.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

(1) The business operated by the Plaintiff is a business operator who is entitled to issue a receipt, and is exempted from the duty to issue a tax invoice, because it is a business operator who produces and installs the Vainaly Aluminy Aluminy Aluminy, a final consumer, and falls under the residential building supply business or similar business under subparagraph 3 or 9 of Article 25-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Thus, the prior Defendant’s disposition on different premise is unlawful

(2) Even if the Plaintiff is an entrepreneur who is obligated to issue a tax invoice, the Plaintiff issued a credit card sales slip, etc. pursuant to Article 57 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, which was enforced from January 1, 2004, instead of issuing a tax invoice, in the case of the first and second parts of the period of January 2004. Thus, the pertinent part of the instant

(b) Related statutes;

Value-Added Tax Act: Articles 16 (Tax Invoice), 22 (Additional Tax), and 32 (Receipt)

Article 32-2 (Tax Credit for Use of Credit Cards, etc.)

Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act: Articles 53 (Tax Invoice) and 57 (Exemption from Duty to Issue Tax Invoice)

(i) Article 79-2 (Receipt), Article 80 (Operation of Credit Cards and Cash Register)

Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act: Article 17 (Exemption from Duty to Issue Tax Invoice);

Article 25-2 (Scope of Business Delivering Receipts)

C. Determination

In light of the principle of no taxation without law, or the requirements for non-taxation or tax reduction and exemption, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted as the text of the law, barring special circumstances, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du9537, Oct. 24, 2003)

First of all, Article 16(1) of the Act provides that when an entrepreneur registered as a taxpayer supplies goods or services, he/she shall deliver a tax invoice to the person who receives the tax invoice, and according to Article 32(1) of the Act and Article 79-2(1)7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, a receipt shall be issued to the entrepreneur who mainly supplies goods or services to consumers who are not an entrepreneur, instead of exempting the entrepreneur from the obligation to issue the tax invoice. Accordingly, Article 25-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act provides that "the entrepreneur who mainly supplies goods or services to consumers who are not an entrepreneur, shall be exempted from the obligation to issue the tax invoice."

As acknowledged earlier, the goods or services provided by the Plaintiff in relation to the installation cost of this case are the installation of a Vietnaminzinium, and it is difficult to regard it as a supply of construction services essential for the supply of residential buildings to the extent that it can be the same as the supply of the residential building itself, and it is also difficult to regard it as a business that is either impossible or considerably difficult to issue a tax invoice (the same shall apply in light of the fact that, under Article 53(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, if a person who receives goods or services is not a business operator, the tax invoice may be issued in lieu of the registration number of the person who receives the goods or services, the tax invoice may not be exempted pursuant to Article 32(1) of the Act and Article 79-2(1)7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act.

Meanwhile, according to the provisions of Articles 57(2), 80(4) and 79-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, even if a general taxable person, who is required to issue a receipt instead of a tax invoice, is obligated to issue a tax invoice when the opposite contractual party demands the issuance of a tax invoice. However, in this case, if a credit card sales slip, etc. as provided in Article 32-2(1) of the Act is issued, the tax invoice shall not be issued. Thus, in the case of a general taxable person whose duty to issue

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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