Cheongju District Court 2013Guhap10415 ( November 28, 2013)

Cho High 2013 Before 2086 (2013.05)

An input tax amount deducted from an existing place of business in acquiring a building is unreasonable.

The Plaintiff appears to have acquired each building of this case for the purpose of new real estate rental business, which is separate from the existing place of business. Thus, the input tax amount of value-added tax deducted by the Plaintiff while acquiring a building in the existing place of business (livestock products brokerage business) is unreasonable

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2014Nu5003 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

】 】

Head of Chungcheong Tax Office

Cheongju District Court Decision 2013Guhap10415 Decided November 28, 2013

August 20, 2014

September 24, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added taxOO for the first period of December 5, 2011 against the plaintiff on December 5, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: "The fact that the plaintiff added No. 5 No. 4 to the reason of the judgment of the court of first instance but is not " from No. 5" to ", but the plaintiff seems to have operated only the real estate rental business at a new place of business for a considerable period of time after addition to the new type of business, as well as the wholesale and retail business for by-products from the new type of business (each transaction in No. 12 to No. 14, No. 16 submitted by the plaintiff in the trial seems to fall under the transaction of the previous place of business or after a considerable period of time after addition to the wholesale and retail business for by-products from the new type of business is added to the new place of business)"; Section 5, No. 10, "the fact that only the new place of business is operating the real estate rental business at the new place of business" seems to be "a separate day after a considerable period of time has elapsed from the acquisition of each of the buildings of this case and the new place of business."

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is with this conclusion.

Since the plaintiff's appeal is legitimate, it is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.