(a) Whether the Federation of Farmland Improvement Associations established under the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act is the same as the Federation of Farmland Improvement Associations established under the previous Farmland Improvement Associations Act (negative);

(b) Whether the Federation of Farmland Improvement Associations is exempted from value-added taxes, where it has provided substitute land services with fees from the State, local governments, etc. (affirmative);

A. The Plaintiff Farmland Improvement Association is a special public corporation established only on May 13, 1978 on the basis of Article 68-4 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act. If the farmland Improvement Association was a non-profit incorporated association dissolved on April 24, 1978 after obtaining permission from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries pursuant to Article 32 of the Civil Act, the said two corporations are separate corporations even if their business objectives, organization, operation, etc. are the same.

B. If the Korean Federation of Farmland Improvement Associations, an incorporated corporation, was established for the purpose of the replotting agency business among the farmland improvement projects implemented by the government, local governments, etc., and was designated as an agent of the government for the replotting business since its establishment, and was designated as an agent of the government with the direct subsidy and indirect subsidy from the government, and performed the replotting business, which is a public project at cost, and received fees from the State, local governments, etc., the above replotting service constitutes a service provided as actual expenses for the farmland improvement project, which is the public interest of the farmland improvement project, by the above corporation, which is an organization with the aim of the public interest of the farmland improvement project, and is subject to tax exemption under Article 12(1)16 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 37 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

A. Article 68-4 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, Article 32 of the Civil Act, Article 12(1)16 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 37 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11158, Jul. 1, 1983)

B. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu100 Delivered on June 26, 1984

Attorney Park Young-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu794 delivered on May 30, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. As determined by the court below, the plaintiff Farmland Improvement Association was established only on May 13, 1978 on the basis of Article 68-4 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act. If the non-party farmland Improvement Association was a non-profit incorporated association dissolved on September 24, 1978 after obtaining permission from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under Article 32 of the Civil Act, it is clear that the above two corporations are separate corporations even if their business purpose and organization and operation are identical, so transactions from January 1, 1977 to April 24, 1978, which the court below acknowledged the plaintiff as a taxable trader and determined that the non-party farmland Improvement Association was related to the substitute land service supplied by the business entity, and the payment obligor of value-added tax following the supply of the service could not become the plaintiff corporation, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the identity of the legal personality of the corporation of the plaintiff Farmland Improvement Association and the non-party farmland Improvement Association.

2. According to Article 12(1)16 of the Value-Added Tax Act, goods or services supplied by religious, charity, academic, relief, or other organizations for public interest, which are prescribed by the Presidential Decree, shall be exempted from the value-added tax for their supply. According to Article 37 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 371, Jul. 1, 1983), goods or services as prescribed by the Presidential Decree under Article 12(1)16 of the Act, which are registered with the competent authorities, shall be goods or services provided temporarily by organizations for their own business purposes or for actual expenses or free of charge by organizations for religious, charity, academic, relief, or other public interest purposes, and goods or services provided by academic or technical research organizations.

According to the judgment of the court below, the non-party farmland improvement association was established on September 28, 1971 by promoting the enhancement of the interests of member cooperatives and providing education and training to its officers and employees, etc., among farmland improvement projects implemented by the government, local governments, etc., with the purpose of providing substitute land as agent for the government's substitute land business and without any profits from direct subsidies and indirect subsidies from the government. The establishment and execution of the budget are made under the approval of the government. The above non-party corporation was voluntarily dissolved to transfer its property and rights and duties to the Association of Special Government Farmland Improvement Associations established under Article 68-4 of the Rural Modernization Promotion Act. The non-party corporation performed the above substitute land business from January 1, 1977 to April 24, 197; the non-party corporation received the substitute land fee from the State, local governments, etc.; the non-party corporation's substitute land business was not subject to the above provision of the Value-Added Tax Act as agent for the purpose of the above land improvement project.

3. Therefore, the arguments are without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)