Whether construction services of a specialized construction company are exempt from value-added tax exemption under Article 11-2 (2) 1 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act.

Despite the absence of legal grounds to deem that the construction services exempted from the value-added tax under Article 11-2 (2) 1 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act are limited to the construction services of the construction company operating a comprehensive construction business and the construction services of the construction company by professional profession are excluded, the imposition of value-added tax is illegal.

Article 11-2(2) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (Gu)

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu213 Decided July 8, 1980

Plaintiff 1 and four others

The Director of the Korean Tax Office

The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of KRW 2,315,548 and KRW 2,916,430 against the deceased non-party on March 15, 1979 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

Judgment like the Disposition

If Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 were collected from each of the contents of the evidence Nos. 1 and 1 and 2, the deceased non-party 2 obtained a second class license for the electrical construction business and operated various electrical construction contract business on February 23, 1979, and died on February 23, 1979, and the plaintiff 2 is his wife. The rest of the plaintiffs are their children. The defendant received the electrical construction from the deceased's new apartment construction construction of a national housing scale below the national housing scale under the Housing Construction Promotion Act constructed by Seoul Special Metropolitan City and Korea Housing Corporation in March 15, 1978, and received it from the deceased's 26,690,000 won, and 20,463,000 won and 20,000 won and 20,000 won and 20,000 won and 30,000 won and 25,000 won and 25,00 won,0.

The plaintiffs' attorney asserted that the defendant was illegal to impose the value-added tax on the housing below national housing size under the Housing Construction Promotion Act and the construction services of the relevant housing under the provisions of Article 11-2 and Article 11-2 (2) 1 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, notwithstanding that the defendant exempted the value-added tax under the provisions of Article 11-2 and 11-2 (2) 1 of the same Act. According to the above Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, the construction services exempted from value-added tax under the above Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act refer only to the construction services of the construction companies that operate the comprehensive construction business, and the construction services of the construction companies by professional position are not included in this case. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case is lawful.

According to the provisions of Article 11-2 (2) 1 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, the supply of housing below national housing size under the Housing Construction Promotion Act and the construction services of the housing concerned shall be exempted from value-added tax. The purport of the above provision is to supply housing below national housing size in order to promote stability in the housing life of the citizens without housing and to improve the housing standard for all citizens, or to reduce the burden by exempting the supply of value-added tax, thereby allowing a person who supplies construction services of the housing concerned to be supplied with low-value housing at least the value-added tax amount equivalent to the value-added tax amount. Thus, restricting only the construction services of the construction business that operates the construction business that operates the construction business that is exempted from value-added tax under Article 11-2 (2) 1 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act is illegal because it is unlawful (Therefore, the construction services of the construction business operated by the defendant, which is added to the National Tax Service established by the National Tax Service, are not subject to imposition of value-added tax.)

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and the lawsuit cost is assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges' regular succession (Presiding Judge) and the Constitutional Court of Justice