Jeonju District Court 2014Guhap509

Services for the expansion of balcony construction of national housing scale apartment buildings shall not constitute justifiable grounds for additional tax reduction or exemption.

The service of expanding the balcony of an apartment building with a scale of national housing is not subject to value-added tax, and there is no justifiable ground to believe that the service is exempted from value-added tax.

Article 26 of the Value-Added Tax Act [Exemption from Supply of Goods or Services]

Gwangju High Court (former District Court) 2015Nu504 ( September 21, 2015)

○○ Corporation

○ Head of tax office

Jeonju District Court 2014Guhap509 ( April 29, 2015)

August 24, 2015

September 21, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. For the plaintiff, each disposition of imposition on the same list among the dispositions of imposition of each value-added tax listed in the separate sheet No. 1 prepared by the head of the defendant ○○ Tax Office and each disposition of imposition on the same list among the dispositions of imposition of each value-added tax listed in the separate sheet No. 2 prepared by the head of the defendant

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this court's explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of "an additional determination of the plaintiff's assertion" under Paragraph (2) below, and therefore, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420

2. Additional determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion

A. The Plaintiff did not impose a tax on the Plaintiff from the first day of 2010 until July 12, 2013, which was issued the instant disposition, and thus, the Plaintiff trusted it and declared a value-added tax exemption on the instant service. Since the Plaintiff recognized justifiable grounds for believing that the instant service constitutes the subject of value-added tax exemption, the instant disposition was unlawful in violation of the principle of trust protection. However, even if the Defendants did not impose a value-added tax prior to the instant disposition, it is difficult to view that the Defendants expressed a public opinion that they would not impose value-added tax and additional tax on the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that since the instant service constitutes a case where the issuance of the tax invoice is substantially difficult pursuant to Article 25-2 subparagraph 10 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act, the receipt may be issued instead of the tax invoice to the buyer to whom the instant service was supplied, the penalty tax portion on the ground of the nonperformance of the issuance of the tax

On the other hand, Article 53(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that a receipt may be issued in the case of "other businesses similar to subparagraphs 1 through 9 of Article 25-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act that are either impossible or considerably difficult to issue a tax invoice," but on the other hand, Article 53(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that a tax invoice may be issued by stating the address, name and resident registration number of the person who receives the goods or services if they are not an entrepreneur. In addition, the Plaintiff may issue the tax invoice by stating only the address, name and resident registration number of the buyer, and the mere fact that the instant service is supplied to many and unspecified

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be just, and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.