Daejeon District Court 201Guhap1032, 2012

early 2010 Before 0874 ( December 13, 2010)

National housing exempted from value-added tax is only a building constructed with a building permit lawfully for the purpose of housing.

The Supreme Court Decision (Supreme Court Decision 2010Du9037, September 9, 2010) is related to the construction and sale of a pented building, the actual use of which is a pented building, and is not suitable to be invoked in this case as to the building used as a residential building through an unlawful remodeling after approval for use was an officetel.

Article 106 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2012Nu1387 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

Austria et al.

The Director of the National Tax Service

Daejeon District Court Decision 201Guhap1032 Decided May 30, 2012

September 6, 2012

September 27, 2012

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the defendant revoked the imposition of the value-added tax of KRW 000 on December 10, 2009 against the plaintiff Gap on December 10, 2009, the second value-added tax of KRW 000 on May 10, 2012, and the first value-added tax of KRW 00 on May 10, 2008, the second value-added tax of KRW 00 on June 1, 2010, the first value-added tax of KRW 1 on June 1, 200, the second value-added tax of KRW 00 on June 200, and the second value-added tax of KRW 00 on June 209.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows: "No. 26 evidence and evidence No. 22 of the judgment of the court of first instance" and "No. 27 evidence" are added to "No. 26 evidence and evidence No. 22 of the same act", and "No. 27 evidence" are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion in the trial of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article

◆ 추가하는 부분

According to Supreme Court Decision 2010Du9037 Decided September 9, 2010 (Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu17898 Decided April 21, 2010), the plaintiffs asserted that whether the use of a building constitutes "national housing" under Article 106 (1) 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Tax Restriction of Buildings Subject to the Exemption of Value-Added Tax should be determined based on the actual use of the building rather than on the use stipulated in the construction permit or the use on the public register. However, the above Supreme Court's decision is related to the case where the plaintiffs who constructed and sold the building in question had constructed and sold the penty building which is not a residential building under the Housing Act before obtaining the construction permit for the building in question, unlike the registration on the public register of the plaintiffs who constructed and sold the building in question, it was not only the time of the construction permit, but also the purpose of use of the building being used as a residential building after the approval of use, and it is not appropriate to invoke the above issue in this case.

In addition, the plaintiffs asserted that the officetels of this case constitutes "national housing" as stipulated in Article 106 (1) 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Taxation Restriction by citing the Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Nu7075 Decided August 24, 1993. However, the above Supreme Court decision is related to whether a building registered as a multi-household detached house can be viewed as a multi-household detached house in light of its substance in light of its substance, and the above decision is not appropriate to be invoked in this case. Therefore, the above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.