Gwangju District Court-2013-Gu Partnership-10205 (2013.05)

The construction services of balcony expansion shall not be deemed essential or ordinarily incidental to the supply of national housing, and shall be subject to taxation.

The service of this case is determined by the choice of the buyer, and it is difficult to view that the supply of each apartment of this case is ordinarily included in the supply of each apartment of this case, or that it is incidental to the supply of each apartment of this case in light of transaction practice. Thus, it cannot be viewed as a service necessarily incidental to the supply of each apartment of this case.

Article 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act and scope of incidental goods or services under Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act.

The revocation of revocation of imposition of value-added tax by the Gwangju High Court-2013-Nu-5189

00

00. Head of tax office

Gwangju District Court-2013-Gu Partnership-10205 (2013.05)

June 26, 2014

July 10, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Defendant’s February 9, 2012 for the second term of 2007 to the Plaintiff, KRW 75,492,610, and KRW 1,208 to the Plaintiff.

334,769,040 won, 510,180,860 won for the second term in 2008, 289, 289,327,310 won for the first term in 2009, 283,452,820 won for the second term in 209, 66,357,840 won for the first term in 2010, and 126,393,480 won for the second term in 2010, respectively, shall be revoked.

Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant shall add to the plaintiff on February 9, 2012.

The imposition of the value-added tax of KRW 42,18,352 for the second term of February 2007, KRW 198,404, KRW 125 for the second term of January 2008, KRW 312,254, KRW 604 for the second term of February 2008, KRW 182,79, KRW 306 for the first term of January 2009, KRW 186,546,472 for the second term of February 2009, KRW 452,704,093 for the first term of January 2010, and KRW 8,797,484 for the second term of February 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Scope of adjudication of this court;

The addition from February 9, 2007 to February 2, 2010 by the plaintiff at the first instance court of the defendant

The judgment of the court of first instance requested the revocation of the imposition of value tax (principal tax and additional tax), and the court of first instance accepted the penalty tax and dismissed the principal tax. Since the appeal was lodged against the main tax that only the plaintiff lost, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the principal tax.

2. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff supplied each apartment of less than national housing size (hereinafter “each apartment of this case”) within 00 districts and 8 districts outside 00 districts from February 2, 2007 to February 2, 2010.

For part of each apartment, the balcony expansion service (hereinafter referred to as the "service in this case") shall be provided.

The plaintiff supplied thickness, and the supply of the service of this case is essential for each apartment of this case.

supply of services that are subject to value-added tax exemption, and any addition thereto

The customs duty was declared as tax-free.

B. As a result of conducting an investigation of value-added tax on the Plaintiff from September 1, 201 to October 17, 2011, the Defendant determined that the supply of the instant service constitutes not subject to value-added tax exemption but rather subject to taxation. On February 9, 2012, the Defendant included the amount of value-added tax for the second period of value-added tax 75,492,610 (including additional tax 33,374,258), value-added tax for the first period of 2008 (including additional tax 136,364,364,915), 334,769,040 (including additional tax 136,364,915), 510,180,860 (including 197,926,256,256), 209, 209, 209, 3608, 296, 2084, 2096, 20964, 2065

C. On May 3, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed on May 3, 2012, but filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal.

The Board dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on January 9, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 4 and 6 (including each number), the whole pleadings

purport of this chapter

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff entered into a sales contract for each apartment of this case with the buyer.

The contract for the expansion of balcony was concluded in a lump sum with an opportunity to work, and the contract for the expansion of balcony was substantially caused.

It is reasonable to see that the contract is not a contract separate from the sales contract, but a contract.

It is received in a lump sum with the same Gu account as the sale price due to the expansion, and balconys are simple.

the original use of the house, not only a additional installation space abutting on the outer wall of the building;

In light of the fact that the road is a space that can be used, the supply of the service of this case is the supply of this case.

The supply of services essential to the supply of each apartment house is applicable.

Moreover, in the case of a group of houses with a type of land for the expansion of balcony and a type of land for the expansion of balcony, three districts, including B-2 blocks, are divided into a type of land for the expansion of balcony and a type of land for the expansion of balcony. In this case, as long as the buyer selects a type of land for the expansion of balcony, it is essential to provide the balcony expansion services, so at least in the case of the above B-2 block and three districts, the balcony expansion services should be deemed to fall under the services essential for the supply of national housing.

Therefore, the value-added tax on the supply of the service of this case must be exempted.

The instant disposition imposing value-added tax is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 106 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010)

Paragraph (1) 4 of Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 106(4)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act stipulate that the supply of housing below national housing scale shall be exempted from value-added tax, and Article 1(4) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that the supply of goods or services essential for the supply of goods or services, which are the main transaction, shall be deemed to be included in the supply of goods or services, which is the main transaction. As such, the supply of housing below national housing scale

On the other hand, Article 1 (4) of the former Value-Added Tax Act

Article 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23595, Feb. 2, 2012) that embodys "the supply of goods or services essentially annexed to the class" provides that "the goods or services that are deemed included in the supply of goods or services which are the main transaction pursuant to Article 1 (4) of the former Value-Added Tax Act shall be as follows." subparagraph 1 provides that "the goods or services that are ordinarily included in the supply price of goods or services, the main transaction price of which is the transaction price," subparagraph 2 provides that "the goods or services that are deemed to be supplied as an incidental to the supply of goods or services which are the main transaction price," subparagraph 3 provides that "the goods or services supplied contingent or temporarily in connection with the main business," and subparagraph 4 provides that "the goods produced as essential to the production of the main goods in connection with the main business."

In addition, taxation requirements or non-taxation requirements under the principle of no taxation without law.

The interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, unless there are special circumstances.

It is not allowed to expand and interpret the trend without any justifiable reason, and in particular, among the provisions of reduction or exemption requirements.

It is strictly interpreted that it can be seen as a clear preferential provision is a principle of tax equity.

Compared (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du11594, Oct. 9, 2008).

2) We examine the instant case: (a) the provisions and legal principles of the pertinent laws and regulations; and (b) as examined below.

Considering the same circumstances, the instant services solely on the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff are subject to objection.

the supply of each apartment complex shall be generally included in the supply of such apartment or shall be deemed to be a transaction practice

It is difficult to view that each apartment house constitutes a case of supply incidental to the supply thereof.

rather, entry of Gap evidence 7, 8, 9 (including each number), Eul evidence 1 to 4, and 7

(1) Enforcement of the Building Act, i.e., enforcement of the Building Act

(5) As amended on December 2, 205, the building alteration of balcony was legalized with the above balcony. This is intended to make it possible to use the balcony installed in the housing units connected to the interior and outside of the building for various purposes, such as living rooms, bedrooms, and warehouses, according to the amendments to the above Acts and subordinate statutes. (2) The provisions of Article 7 of the Act on the Procedure for Structural Alteration of the balcony and the Standards for Building Supply are also enacted to provide for the construction of the apartment units separately from the apartment units supplied by the owner of the apartment units, so that the housing units can be purchased by the owner of the apartment units, and the building units can be purchased by the owner of the apartment units, and the building units can be purchased by the owner of the apartment units and the building units supplied by the owner of the apartment units, and the building units supplied by the owner of the apartment units can be purchased by the owner of the apartment units and the building units supplied by the owner of the apartment units. (The above provisions are amended by Act No. 1050, Mar. 30, 2019).

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion on a different premise is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part concerning the principal tax of value-added tax among the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

We dismiss the plaintiff's appeal because the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is legitimate.

We decide as above. It is so ordered as per Disposition.