Suwon District Court-2016-Gu Partnership-1203 ( September 22, 2016)

Early High Court Decision 2015J 1416 (Law No. 17, 2015)

Any lease for residential purposes with an input tax deduction at the time of the acquisition of officetels shall be subject to collection.

Even if the instant officetel was acquired for residential purpose and leased for residential purpose, it is subject to a revised return for the collection of value-added tax as long as the initial input tax amount is deducted.

Contents are the same as added.A.

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

2016-Nu 67730 The revocation of revocation of the revocation of the refund of value-added tax

AA

O Head of tax office

2, 2017.02

2017.12

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's disposition rejecting the correction of value-added tax of KRW 10,751,00 in total of KRW 10,751,00 in value-added tax of KRW 7,397,138 in 201 against the plaintiff on August 31, 2015.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition to the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text

2. The addition;

○ 5. The following shall be added to the 5.0's deduction for the fifth place:

“The location of the office of the Plaintiff when filing an application for business registration as a general taxable person.”

In light of the fact that the instant officetel was used and leased for non-residential purposes as well as for residential purposes, it is sufficient to deem that the Plaintiff acquired the instant officetel for non-residential purposes and used it exclusively for tax-free business (non-residential lease).

○ 5. The following is added to the fact that there is no evidence of the 20th page.

(Plaintiffs) A business entity shall be a taxable business entity until the end of 2015, after its business registration.

No objection may be raised to the Defendant against which a self-registration is made, but rather, taxation has not been made.

A business operator has reported and paid value-added tax.)

○ 6. The following shall be added to 6.4 'the 6.6.4 'the 6.4 'the 6.6.5

Although the Plaintiff asserts that part of the refund of value-added tax is refunded the value-added tax amount of KRW 7,718,750, which is included in the sale price, and that the value-added tax is naturally to be refunded, it is not deducted from the output tax amount as it constitutes the input tax amount under Article 17 (2) 6 of the former Value-Added Tax Act. This is not different from the case where the Plaintiff acquired an existing officetel through a sales contract and continues to use it for a tax-free business (residential rental business) after the completion of construction. Thus, the above part of value-added tax cannot be deemed to be subject to refund, and the Plaintiff asserted that even though the Plaintiff entered the “annual supply price of KRW 7,00,000 as the annual supply price” in the application for the registration of business, the Defendant erred in its registration as a general taxable entrepreneur, but the annual supply price stated in the application for registration is merely an element to verify whether the Plaintiff satisfies the application standards for a simplified taxable business under the premise that the Plaintiff is a taxable entrepreneur, and if the Plaintiff acquired it is not related to the tax exemption.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition.