Jeonju District Court 2008Guhap1044 ( November 06, 2008)

Whether installation works in balcony voting are services essential for housing construction services below the scale of national housing;

The construction services below the national housing scale include the supply of goods or services essential to the construction services, but in the case of the apartment buildings, it is deemed that a contract for the installation of the balcony voting is concluded separately from the sales contract and the installation price is deposited separately from the sales price, and thus, the construction works of the balcony voting is not the supply of services incidental to the national housing construction services.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 106 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

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

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of value-added tax for the second period of February 9, 2005 against the plaintiff on February 9, 2007 by the defendant shall be revoked.

1. The issues of the instant case and the judgment of the first instance court

A. The plaintiff is a company that was established on July 15, 1999 and operated a housing construction business, etc. as the trade name, i.e., ○○ Industrial Development (the trade name was changed to ○○○ Construction Company on December 21, 2007) (the plaintiff was changed to ○○ Construction Company) and completed the registration of construction business under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry on July 29, 2005.

B. In the second half of 2005, the Plaintiff, ○○○○○ apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) located in ○○○○○○○○ apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”). The Plaintiff determined that the said construction falls under the subject of value-added tax exemption as a national housing and construction service of the relevant housing, and filed a report on the tax base of value-added tax for the second half of 2005 with the Defendant except the above construction revenue when filing a return on the tax base of value-added tax.

C. As a result of the investigation of corporate tax against the Plaintiff from September 7, 2006 to November 6, 2006, the Director of the Gwangju Regional Tax Office determined that the instant construction is not subject to value-added tax exemption and notified the Defendant of the correction of the Plaintiff’s value-added tax exemption. Accordingly, on February 9, 2007, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that imposed value-added tax on the Plaintiff at KRW 373,240,920 by correcting the amount of value-added tax for the second period of February 9, 2007.

D. The key issue of this case is whether the construction of the apartment of this case, the construction of which does not exceed the scale of national housing, or whether it constitutes the supply of services essential for the construction of the apartment of this case.

E. On this ground, the first instance court determined that the instant disposition was lawful on the ground that the housing construction service below the national housing size subject to the exemption from value-added tax includes the construction service of national housing and the supply of goods or services essential to it, but on the following grounds, the instant construction service does not constitute the supply of construction service of the instant apartment, a national housing, or the supply of services essential to it.

In other words, according to Gap's evidence 5, the plaintiff entered into a blanket contract for the construction of the apartment of this case with 86,984,00,00 won between ○○ Construction on August 31, 2003 and ○○○ Construction, but it is unclear whether the apartment of this case is included in the above construction contract only with Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 8-1,8-8, and even if the apartment of this case was designed to carry out the apartment of this case with the apartment of this case, unlike the plaintiff's assertion, it is insufficient to view that the construction cost of this case is naturally included in the apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's construction.

F. According to the result of the oral argument at the court of the first instance, it is recognized that the judgment at the court of first instance is correct.

2. Quotation and conclusion of the judgment of the first instance;

Therefore, the reason why the court uses this case is the same as the column of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it can be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is with this conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff's appeal.