The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. An input tax amount related to a taxable business and a non-taxable business shall, in principle, be calculated according to the actual attribution; where an input tax amount is related only to a non-taxable business, it shall not be deducted from the output tax amount; and where there is an input tax amount which cannot be separated from the actual attribution because it is commonly used for a taxable business and a non-taxable business, in principle, if it concurrently runs a taxable business and a non-taxable business, the input tax amount divided in proportion

(2) Article 61(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that if a business entity receives a national subsidy, etc. from the State or a local government for the supply of services, not for the supply of services falling under a non-taxable business, but for the supply of services, it cannot be deemed as a consideration for the supply of services falling under a non-taxable business, the provision of Article 61(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 18, 2

Therefore, in this case, among other reasonable methods of calculation such as the method of each subparagraph of Article 61(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, the input tax amount distributed to non-taxable businesses should be added by applying the method of calculating common input tax amount.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Du19875 Decided March 24, 2016, etc.). 2. A.

The lower court, citing the first instance judgment, recognized the following facts.

(1) The Plaintiff’s transportation of high-speed rail, freight, etc. subject to taxation under the Value-Added Tax Act.