Action seeking revocation of imposition of value-added tax

Whether the value-added tax can be refunded if the building is demolished because it has not been long after the acquisition of the building.

The contents of the judgment are the same as attachment.

Article 39 (1) 7 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 80 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

2017Guhap63673 Disposition of revocation of a notice of rectification of value-added tax

*

Head of Ansan Tax Office

on July 26, 2017

on January 23, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On June 13, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition of correction and notification of value-added tax of KRW 18,177,240 (including additional tax) imposed on the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2015. 5. 26. 송##으로부터 안산시 소재 토지2,891.2㎡(이하 '이 사건 토지'라 한다) 및 위 지상 건물 가동 1,178㎡, 나동 972㎡(이하 '이 사건 건물'이라 한다), 다동 1,047.14㎡를 토지분 3,862,464,000원 및 건물분552,536,000원 합계 4,415,000,000원(건물분 부가가치세 55,253,630원 별도)에 매수하고, 위 각 건물 매수가액 및 철거비용에 대한 부가가치세를 모두 매입세액공제하는 것으로 하여 2015년 제1기분 부가가치세 조기환급 신고를 하였다. 피고는 그 무렵 위 신고 내용대로 환급결정을 하였다.

B. From March 2, 2016 to March 8, 2016, the Defendant confirmed the Plaintiff’s refund site.

On June 13, 2016, the value-added tax on the purchase price and the cost of removal of the instant building shall be deemed as the input tax amount related to the instant land, and the input tax amount shall be deducted pursuant to Article 39(1)7 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 80 Subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which was revised and notified to the Plaintiff on June 13, 2015 (including additional tax) for the first term portion of value-added tax 18,17,240 (including additional tax) for the first term portion of the instant building (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an objection on August 26, 2016, and filed on November 15, 2016.

However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on February 13, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 1, Eul No. 2 and 3

Each entry of evidence, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Purchase under Article 39(1)7 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 80(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

The subject of exemption from the tax amount should be the input tax amount related to the "capital expenditure for the creation, etc. of the land". The plaintiff did not purchase the building of this case for the purpose of removing the building of this case and constructing a new building on the site, but it became possible to remove the building of this case only after the purchase of the building of this case. The value of the land of this case due to purchase and removal of the building of this case

Since it cannot be deemed that the above purchase and removal costs are actually increased, the input tax amount is the input tax amount.

shall not be subject to exclusion from deductions.

2) In addition, the above provision is excluded from input tax deduction only in cases where land is used as a site, so even if the Plaintiff demolished the instant building, it does not constitute an object of exemption from input tax deduction as long as the building is newly built on the site.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) First, according to the purport of the Plaintiff’s statement and pleading as to the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the instant building No. 1, the Plaintiff received a report on demolition or destruction of the instant building on June 16, 2015, which was about 200,000 days after completing the registration of ownership transfer on May 26, 2015, and the Plaintiff received the said report on demolition or destruction of the instant building on June 17, 2015, and the Plaintiff’s cancellation of the building ledger on July 17, 2015, which was about 10,000,000, after the said report was issued on June 17, 2015. In light of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant building and the point at which the instant building was removed, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had no reason to view that the Plaintiff had taken measures such as asking the seller, which was the seller of the instant building, for the warranty against the instant building.

2) Next, under Article 39(1)7 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 80 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the input tax amount related to the cost of acquiring and removing the demolished building where a building is acquired and the building is used only for the land is used, shall not be deducted from the output tax amount, as the input tax amount related to the capital expenditure for building the land. In light of the history, purport, context, etc. of the above statutes, “where a building is acquired and the building is removed and only used for only the land,” which is subject to a non-taxation of the input tax amount, includes not only the case where a building is used as a site but also the case where a building is used as a site for a new building (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du2524, Feb. 1, 2008). The Plaintiff’s above assertion also has the grounds for appeal.

shall not be effective.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.