Where a victim whose property is damaged by a tort is entitled to be deducted or refunded from the portion of value-added tax out of the repair cost, whether he/she is entitled to seek compensation for the portion of

The principle is that if the victim bears the value-added tax required for repair due to the damage of goods owned by the victim caused by other person's illegal acts, the victim may claim compensation against the perpetrator for the amount of the repair cost, including the value-added tax. However, if the victim is a taxpayer under the Value-Added Tax Act and the repair of the business constitutes the input tax amount under Article 17 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, because the value-added tax constitutes the input tax amount under Article 17 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the victim can be deducted or refunded from his own output tax. Thus, the above value-added tax cannot be actually claimed against the perpetrator for damages equivalent to the above value-added tax, barring any other special circumstances. In such a case, the victim cannot claim for compensation from the perpetrator, unless the above value-added tax is actually deducted or refunded

Article 763 (Civil Act Article 393 of Civil Act) and Article 17 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Han-il Co., Ltd.

Han-jin Law Office, Han-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na12881 delivered on September 24, 1992

Of the part against the defendant in the judgment below, the part against the defendant 408,000 won and damages for delay shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that, as long as the plaintiff did not refund the value-added tax until the closing date of argument of the court below, the amount of the plaintiff's actual repair cost is the amount of damage, the plaintiff paid as the repair cost, and the value-added tax included in the repair cost, for which the plaintiff claimed damages against the defendant, can be deducted or refunded at the time of settlement of the value-added tax, and thus, should be excluded from the scope of damage caused by the defendant's tort.

In general, in cases where goods owned by a victim are damaged due to a tort of another person and thus requiring repair, if the victim bears the value-added tax required for repair, the victim may claim compensation against the perpetrator for damages, including the value-added tax. However, in cases where the repair of a business operator, who is a taxpayer under the Value-Added Tax Act, falls under the input tax amount under Article 17 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and its repair constitutes an input tax amount under which it was used or is to be used for his own business, so the victim may be entitled to deduct or refund the value-added tax. Therefore, the above value-added tax shall not be actually returned to the victim's burden. Therefore, the victim cannot claim damages equivalent to the above value-added tax. In such cases, the above value-added tax amount should not be deducted from the amount of damages of the victim, unless there are any special circumstances. If the victim can deduct or get a refund of the value-added tax, if the victim can receive it as compensation for damages, then the victim cannot make a refund or refund due to the offender's.

According to the records, among damages equivalent to the repair cost of the amount of KRW 7,480,00 which the court below acknowledged in accordance with the plaintiff's argument, it is clear that the value-added tax equivalent to KRW 680,00 is included in the repair cost (the compensation amount was limited to 60%, which is the defendant's liability ratio). On the other hand, the accident of this case occurred while the plaintiff leases the middle term to the non-party joint defendant defendant defendant defendant 1 in the court of first instance, and the plaintiff himself claims that the middle term of this case is operated for the plaintiff's business. Therefore, it appears that the middle term of this case is used for the plaintiff's business. Therefore, the court below should examine whether the above value-added tax amount included in the repair cost of this case can be deducted or refunded as the input tax amount, and determine whether the above value-added tax amount constitutes the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the tort of this case. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation.

There is reason to point this out.

Therefore, among the parts against the Defendant regarding repair costs, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)