early 2010 Before 0874 ( December 13, 2010)

National housing exempted from value-added tax is only a building constructed with a building permit lawfully for the purpose of housing.

A national housing exempt from value-added tax, in light of its purpose, etc., is limited to a building constructed lawfully for the purpose of a house, and where it is remodeled into a house without obtaining permission for alteration of use after obtaining permission for construction from an officetel, it shall not constitute a national housing exempt from value-added tax even if its area constitutes national housing scale.

Article 106 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2011Revocation of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

OAA 1 other

The Director of the National Tax Service

May 30, 2012

May 30, 2012

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

피고가，① 원고 오AA를 상대로 한 ㉮ 2009. 12. 10. 2008년 제2기 귀속 부가가치세 000원，㉯ 2012. 5. 10. 2008년 제1기 귀속 부가가치세 000원의 각 부과처분， ② 2010. 6. 1. 원고 최BB을 상대로 한 ㉮ 2008년 제1기 귀속 부가가치세 000원，㉯ 2008년 제2기 귀속 부가가치세 445，549，580원，㉰ 2009년 제1기 귀속 부가가치세 152，505，000원의 각 부과처분을 각 취소한다.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고 오AA는 2006.경 천안시 서북구 OO동 0000 대 494.2㎡， 같은 동 000 대 513.2㎡를 정DD 등으로부터 매수하여 오피스텔 건축허가를 받은 후 그 지상에 각 6층짜리 오피스텔 2개동을 신축하여 박EEE 등에게 합계 000원에 미등기 전매하였다.

B. Plaintiff LB purchased 00 O-dong O-dong 00 and 5 parcels of land in Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, the construction of 6-story officetels on each ground, and subsequently sold 00 won in total to LeeF, etc. (hereinafter “eight-story officetels”)

C. The plaintiffs illegally borrowed a construction business license to evade taxes, such as value-added tax, corporate tax, and other taxes, and to increase the number of households without permission unlike the initial reported number of households in the process of performing the aforementioned new real estate construction business, and were investigated by the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office in the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office due to the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, the violation of the Building Act, and the violation of the Parking Lot Act, etc., and the defendant notified the plaintiffs of the relevant misconduct on December 10, 209, after undergoing a tax investigation with respect to the plaintiffs, imposed the tax amount of value-added tax of 00 won for the second period of value-added tax of 2008, and the second period of value-added tax of 00 won for the second period of 2008, and the second period of value-added tax of 00 won for the second period of 2008, and the second period of 2008, and the amount of value-added tax of 10 years for 2009.

D. On May 10, 2012, the Defendant issued a correction and notice of the value-added tax for the first period of 2008, on the grounds that the time when part of the value-added tax imposed on the Plaintiff OA was attributed to the Plaintiff for the first period of 2008, and the value-added tax for the second period of 2008, from 000 to 000 won (the instant disposition of each of the above value-added tax imposed on the changed Plaintiffs, collectively).

E. On March 8, 2010, and on December 15, 2010, Plaintiff OA filed a request with each Tax Tribunal for a trial, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss each request on December 13, 201 and April 12, 201.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, and Eul evidence 1 to 22 (including the number), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs have newly constructed the instant officetel from the beginning to the beginning, and sold it for residential purpose. The instant officetel all constitutes a multi-household house of not more than 85§³ per household, and this constitutes a "national housing subject to the exemption of value-added tax as prescribed in Article 106 (1) 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Taxation Restriction." Nevertheless, the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax on the profits accrued from the construction and sale of the instant officetel is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

In the case of "National Housing Tax 4" under Article 106 (1) 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Taxation, it is difficult to use the 1studio to use the 1studio 2, and the 1studio 1studio 2, and the 2ndudio 1studio 1studio 3studio 1studio 1studio 1studio 1studio 2studio 1studio 1studio 1studio 2studio 1studio 1studio 2studio 1studio 2studio 1studio 1studio 6studio 1studio 1studio 1studio 1studio 1studio 6studio 1studio 1studio 1studio 1studio 2studio 3studio 1studio 2studio 3stud.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiffs' claims in this case are all dismissed due to the lack of reason, and they are ordered.

The decision shall be rendered as above.