Gwangju High Court 2008Nu2315 ( October 27, 2009)

National High Court Decision 2007 Mine3602 ( October 31, 2008)

Installation works in balcony shall not fall under services essential for housing construction services below the scale of national housing;

It is difficult to view that the installation cost of the balcony voting is naturally included in the apartment sale price or that the supply of construction services is naturally incidental to the supply of the construction services of the apartment, and the installation work of the balcony voting is subject to value-added tax.

209Du6155 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Value-Added Tax

○ Limited Liability Company

○ Head of tax office

Gwangju High Court Decision 2008Nu2315 Decided March 27, 2009

March 10, 2011

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 106 (1) 4 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7839 of Dec. 31, 2005) provides that "national housing and construction services for the relevant housing prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be exempted from value-added tax", and Article 12 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the supply of goods or services essential for the supply of goods or services exempt from value-added tax shall be deemed to be included in the supply of goods or services exempt from value-added tax."

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below concluded a new construction contract with △△ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "△△ Construction") on August 31, 2003, with the construction cost of KRW 86,984,00,00, which is below the national housing scale exempt from value-added tax, ○○○○-dong 2, 00, 000, based on the evidence of employment. ② The plaintiff executed the construction project of the balcony Seoul Metropolitan Government Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the instant apartment") on February 2005, △△△ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the instant apartment"), ③ separately from the buyer of the apartment of the instant apartment, concluded the instant construction contract, and some buyers did not conclude the apartment construction contract with △△△ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "△△△ Construction"), and determined that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to be subject to the said construction project on the ground that the apartment sales price includes the construction cost of the instant apartment construction project or its supply of services.

In light of the above provisions and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the supply of services essential for the supply of main services under the Value-Added Tax Act, or in violation of the rules of evidence.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.