(a) Whether an advertising business operator imposes value-added tax on the supply of Capital when he/she manufactures Capital and donates it to the State and obtains permission for free use for five years (affirmative);

(b) In cases under paragraph (1), the tax base of value-added tax;

A. When the Plaintiff, an advertising producer and an advertising company, made and set up an international bus stop in the Kimpo International Airport and the domestic bus stop in Korea, donated the use of the carp, and the State, along with the notice of donation, allowed the Plaintiff to use the carpon for five years until it reaches the donation price by setting 20% of the donation price, and permitted the free use of the carpon for five years, if the Plaintiff, from that time, uses the carpon on the advertisement side of the carp, it is deemed that the above carp is in an economic relationship between the above carpon’s donation and the acquisition of the right to use the carpon’s free use. Thus, the supply of the carpon constitutes a free supply of goods subject to value-added tax. The above carpon’s supply was based on a separate administrative disposition, and the use permission was made in a separate form of donation, and the Plaintiff’s economic relation with the use of the carpon to the above free use of the house for the purpose of cancelling the use permit as a free use permit.

B. In the case of the preceding paragraph, if the right of free use is acquired not by receiving money from the above Capital's proceeds from supply but by the time when the total amount of the usage fees reaches the donated value, the tax base for such right shall be the market price of the goods under Article 13 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and it shall not be the tax base for one year out

A. Article 7(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 26 of the State Property Act, Article 71(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12445 of May 7, 198)

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu1797 delivered on February 27, 1990 (Gong1990,811).B. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3656 delivered on March 27, 1990 (Gong190,1001)

[Defendant-Appellant] Park Jong-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant]

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu9816 delivered on January 25, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) According to the court below's duly established decision, the plaintiff, as an advertising manufacturer and advertising businessman, installed the capital at the international bus stops in the Kimpo International Airport from the State on September 3, 1987, and donated it to the State without compensation for five years, and the State made the capital and donated it to the State on February 8, 198. On February 17, 1988, the State made the notification of the donation to the plaintiff on February 17, 198, that the plaintiff used the advertisement of the capital as well as the notice of donation to the plaintiff on February 17, 198, and allowed the plaintiff to use the advertisement of the capital for five years if the ratio of the fee is set at 20 percent of the donation value, and allowed the plaintiff to use it for five years.

(2) Under the above facts, since the above Capital Capital's donation and the acquisition of the right to use it are in an economic quid pro quo relationship, the supply of the said Capital Capital's supply constitutes the supply of goods subject to value-added tax, and even if the supply of the said Capital Capital's appearance was made in the form of free donation, and the permission for use was made in a separate administrative disposition, it cannot be deemed as a free supply of goods to the country subject to value-added tax, provided that the above economic quid pro quo relationship exists (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu1797, Feb. 27, 1990; 89Nu3656, Mar. 27, 1990).

Article 26 of the State Property Act and Article 71 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12445 of May 7, 198) provide that the public property donated for the purpose of making it administrative property may be free of charge to the donor during the period for which it is not directly used for its original purpose. In addition, the above permit for free use of capital is renewed on a yearly basis, and if it is violated the terms and conditions of the permission, it may be revoked at any time, or the plaintiff has a lot of usage fees on the site of the above capital, the above conclusion may not be different.

(3) As determined by the court below, the plaintiff acquired the right of free use until the total amount of the fee reaches the donation amount, not the money received as the consideration for the supply of the above Capital, and thus, the tax base for such right shall not be the market price of the above goods pursuant to Article 13(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3656, Mar. 27, 1990).

In the above purport, the judgment of the court below with the above purport is just and it is not acceptable to criticize the judgment of the court below.

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

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)