In case where the amount of value-added tax can be deducted or refundable from the output tax amount for the part of the repair expenses for the insurance-related building destroyed by the insured as an insured event against, whether the amount equivalent to the value-added tax constitutes the insured’s

The value-added tax amount equivalent to the value-added tax shall not be deemed to be the damage suffered by the insured due to an insured event, where the insured is a business entity liable to pay the value-added tax, and the insured is supplied goods or services to be used for his own business, and the value-added tax which is collected at the time of paying the repair expenses is the input tax amount prescribed in the Value-Added Tax Act and can be deducted or refundable later

Articles 65 and 683 of the Commercial Act; Article 17(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

El District Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Park Sung-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 98Na5241 delivered on December 17, 1998

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The court below held that the amount equivalent to the value-added tax is not losses suffered by the plaintiffs due to the insured events in this case, since the plaintiffs are business entities liable to pay value-added tax, and the plaintiffs are supplied goods or services to be used for their own business, and the value-added tax to be collected at the time of their payment of repair costs constitutes the input tax amount under the Value-Added Tax Act and can be deducted from their output tax amount, and thus, the amount equivalent to the value-added tax is not appropriate (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da47328, Jul. 27, 1993); and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to this point.

2. The court below held that, among the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the fire of this case, the damages caused by the loss of the house and the equipment and the indirect damages caused by the business losses are not all the objects of the fire insurance of this case for the purpose of insurance, and the lessee responsible for the fire from among the damages caused by the fire of this case is not entitled to the compensation of the fire insurance of this case, and the damages caused by the rental deposit paid to the plaintiffs by the lessees who are responsible for the fire from among the damages caused by the fire of this case shall not be entitled to the compensation of the insurance. The judgment of the court below

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)