Korea Rail Network Authority (Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daejeon director of the tax office (Law Firm Pyeong, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

October 29, 2015

Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Guhap102516 Decided May 20, 2015

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The imposition of each value-added tax on June 11, 2014 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff established pursuant to the Korea Rail Network Authority Act (hereinafter “KRNA”) carries out projects such as the construction and management of railroad facilities, construction of foreign railroads and inter-Korean connected railroad networks and the construction of inter-Korean railroad networks. The Korea Railroad Corporation (hereinafter “railroad Corporation”) established pursuant to the Korea Railroad Corporation Act (hereinafter “the Korea Railroad Corporation Act”) carries out projects such as railroad passenger services, cargo transportation services, maintenance and repair of railroad facilities, etc. entrusted by the State, local governments, public corporations, etc.

B. From 2009 to 2012, the Plaintiff returned and paid value-added tax by deducting the input tax amount according to the tax invoice for maintenance and repair expenses, such as tracks issued by the Railroad Corporation (hereinafter “tax invoice for maintenance and repair expenses issued by the Plaintiff during the said period”).

C. From April 30, 2014, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff, and subsequently denied the Plaintiff’s input tax deduction on the ground that the instant tax invoice issued by the Railroad Corporation constitutes “illegal tax invoice” that erroneously states the person who received the instant tax invoice, even though the Plaintiff did not conclude the contract for maintenance and repair with the Railroad, and on June 11, 2014, the Defendant imposed the Plaintiff the total value-added tax amount of KRW 244,172,348,830 (including additional tax) from the first to the second half of 2012 as indicated in the attached tax list (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On June 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition. However, the Tax Tribunal did not decide that the period for decision under Articles 81 and 65(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes should expire 90 days, which is one of the period for decision making under Articles 81 and 65(2).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 6, 8, 9 (if there are provisional numbers, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The reason for the provision of services falling under the supply of services under the Value-Added Tax Act is very comprehensive, as all the reasons under the contract or all the legal causes. The tax invoice of this case issued by the Plaintiff from the Railroad Corporation is not a tax invoice different from the fact that it is issued with the actual provision of maintenance and repair services due to the legal causes or contractual reasons based on the explicit or implied contract as follows, and the disposition of this case must be revoked illegally

1) Legal grounds

Article 20 of the Framework Act on Railroad Industry (hereinafter “Framework Act”) provides for the management of railroad facilities, including maintenance and repair, as the Plaintiff’s duties. Article 38 of the Act stipulates that the duties of maintaining and repairing railroad facilities are the duties of the railroad construction, and Article 8 of the Railroad Facilities Corporation Act provides that such maintenance and repair shall be conducted through mutual cooperation and consultation between the Plaintiff and the railroad operator (railroad). Since provision of maintenance and repair services is conducted based on such legal basis, supply relationship between the railroad construction and the Plaintiff is established.

2) Causes of the contract

Although there was a circumstance that the three-party contracts between the State, the Plaintiff, and the Railroad Corporation were not concluded at once due to the difference between the time of establishment and the Plaintiff, both the State and the Plaintiff’s asset management contract and the State and the maintenance and repair contract between the State and the National Railroad Corporation are to supply the Plaintiff with the services of maintenance and repair. Accordingly, the supply relationship between the National Railroad and the Plaintiff is established by mediating an asset management contract and maintenance and repair contract. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was aware that the Plaintiff was provided with the services of maintenance and repair by the National Railroad according to the asset management contract, and the Plaintiff was also aware of the receipt of the services of maintenance and repair by the National Railroad. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff continued to issue a tax invoice without any objection under the same recognition and settled the price for the said services in a way that offsets the rental fee. Accordingly, the supply relationship between the Plaintiff and the Railroad was established at least as a matter of implied

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) recognised facts

(i) structural reform of the railroad industry and establishment of the Plaintiff and the Railroad Corporation;

A) The State enacted the Framework Act on July 29, 2003, thereby promoting the structural reform of the railroad industry separating the railroad facility sector from the railroad operation sector in order to strengthen the competitiveness of the railroad industry and build a foundation for development.

B) Accordingly, on January 1, 2004, the Plaintiff was established by combining related organizations of the Korea Railroad and the Korea Railroad Facility Corporation in order to systematically and efficiently carry out affairs related to railroad facilities.

C) In addition, on January 1, 2005, the Korea Railroad was fully incorporated by the Government by converting the relevant organizations of the Korea Railroad and the Korea High-Speed Rail Construction Authority to enhance the expertise and efficiency of railroad operation-related projects.

2) The contractual relationship between the State and the Plaintiff and the Railroad Corporation

A) An entrustment contract for the management of general railroad facility assets between the State and the Plaintiff

(1) Around April 2004, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport entered into a contract to entrust the management of general railroad assets (hereinafter “instant asset management contract”) with the Plaintiff by setting the period of management entrustment by December 31, 2008 between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff. Of them, the part relating to the instant case is as follows.

(1) The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport shall have the Plaintiff perform the following affairs (hereinafter referred to as "entrusted affairs"). (1) The Plaintiff shall be responsible for the overall management of railroad assets; (2) Registration under the provisions of Article 11 of the Act and take other necessary measures; (b) Reporting on the submission of management and disposal plans and execution status of State property under the provisions of Article 12 of the Act; (1) The Plaintiff shall be allowed to use or profit from such property with the approval of the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, or to have another person use or profit from such property after preparing a budget bill for the following entrusted affairs (hereinafter referred to as "construction and maintenance and repair project") by 10 years; (3) The Plaintiff shall prepare a budget bill for the entrusted affairs, such as maintenance and repair of the State property under the provisions of Article 3 subparagraph 2 (a) through (d) of the Framework Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"; and the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport shall determine the amount of usage fees and other necessary measures to be taken by the Plaintiff, including usage fees and profit from the State property:

Note 3) (d)

Note 4) Provisions

(2) On May 20, 2009, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport again concluded the instant asset management agreement with the Plaintiff, setting the period of the management entrustment from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2013. The portion that differs from the previous contract is as follows.

(1) The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport shall require the Plaintiff to perform the following affairs (hereinafter referred to as “entrusted affairs”), and the Plaintiff shall be responsible for the overall management of railroad assets. 1. The following affairs under the provisions of the State Property Act (hereafter referred to as the “Act” in this subparagraph). (b) The submission of a management and disposal plan and the report on the status of execution under the provisions of Article 9 of the Act (former Article 12). The disposal and registration of real estate without owners under the provisions of Articles 12 and 14 of the Act and necessary measures (former Articles 8 and 11). (d) The approval for use under the provisions of Article 17 of the Act (former Article 23) Article 7 of the Act (former Article 23), etc. for the purpose of using the railroad facilities under subparagraph 2 (a) through (d) of Article 3 of the Framework Act (hereinafter referred to as “railroad facilities, etc.”), the Plaintiff shall take measures, such as the contract for use of tracks, etc., and the maintenance and repair of the aforementioned provision of the entrustment contract shall comply with Article 38 of the Framework Act.

B) Contracts for the maintenance and consignment of national and general railroad facilities;

(1) On December 31, 2004, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport entered into a contract with the Korea National Railroad to entrust the duties of maintenance and repair of general railroad facilities (hereinafter “instant maintenance and repair contract”) with the Korea National Railroad by setting the term of the entrustment contract from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2009 (hereinafter “the contract before the conclusion of the maintenance and repair contract between the Plaintiff and the Korea National Railroad”) and the said contract was succeeded to the Korea National Railroad Corporation pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Addenda of the Railroad Corporation Act ( December 31, 2003) and Article 16(2) of the said contract, and the part relating to this case is as follows:

(2) The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport shall prepare and submit to the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport the relevant data and details of maintenance and repair expenses necessary for establishing a plan for the maintenance and repair of the following year by March each year, and notify the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport thereof. (2) The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport shall prepare and obtain approval of the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. (1) The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport shall pay expenses to be paid according to the entrustment of maintenance and repair works to the National Railroad (hereinafter referred to as the "entrusted expenses") by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

(2) On January 25, 2010, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport concluded the instant maintenance and repair contract with the Korea Railroad, setting the term of the entrustment contract from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012, and further concluded the instant maintenance and repair contract with the period from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012.

The scope of entrustment by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport to railroad construction is the maintenance (including management of defects) of railroad facilities owned by the State (hereinafter referred to as "railroad facilities"), such as tracks, buildings, electric power, electric power, signal, information and communication, soundproof walls, and railroad traffic control facilities (hereinafter referred to as "railroad facilities").* Article 8 (Settlement of Accounts and Settlement of Maintenance and Repair Costs) of the previous contract was transferred to the same content as Article 9 (Settlement of Accounts and Settlement of Maintenance and Repair Costs).

C) A contract for use of a general railroad, etc. between the State and the railroad corporation

(1) On December 31, 2004, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport entered into a contract with the Korea Railroad to use general railroad facilities, such as tracks (hereinafter “instant contract”) by setting the period of use from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005. The said contract was succeeded to the Korea Railroad Corporation pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Addenda to the Railroad Corporation Act (amended by December 31, 2003) and Article 1 of Addenda to the contract, and the part relating to the instant case is as follows.

Article 2 (Scope of Application) of the Table contained in the main text of this Agreement shall be limited to cases where the Korea Railroad intends to use the railroad facilities owned by the State (hereinafter referred to as the "railroad, etc.") except facilities for which the right to manage railroad facilities has been established under Article 26 of the Framework Act, among railroad facilities falling under subparagraph 2 (a) through (d) of Article 3 of the Framework Act, for the purpose of passenger or cargo transportation.

(2) On December 30, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a new contract for the instant track use with the Railroad Corporation by setting the period of use from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008. The portion that differs from the previous contract is as follows.

The maintenance and repair of tracks, etc. subject to this contract under Article 7 (Maintenance and Repair) of the table included in the main text shall be governed by the "contract for the maintenance and repair of general railroad facilities". Article 8 (Entrustment Contract for the Maintenance and Repair of Railroad Facilities) (1) The Railroad Corporation shall pay the fees for the tracks, etc. provided by the Plaintiff. (2) The user fees to be paid by the Railroad Corporation under paragraph (1) shall be the amount excluding the maintenance and repair expenses provided by the Government to the Railroad Corporation from the total amount of the general railroad maintenance and repair expenses reflected in the budget of the relevant year, but the user fees to be paid by the end of December of the following year shall be determined by agreement between the Plaintiff and the Railroad Corporation: (3) The user fees under paragraph (2) shall be paid by payment notice issued by the Plaintiff for each quarter, but may be offset against the general railroad maintenance and repair expenses to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Railroad Corporation.

(3) On March 31, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into the instant track use agreement with the Railroad Corporation, setting the period of use from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009, again, by setting the period of use from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009. The portion that differs from the previous contract is as follows.

Article 8 (Fees for Railroad, etc.) (1) of the table included in the main sentence. (2) The usage fees of lines, etc. to be paid by the Railroad Corporation in 2009 pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be 70% (including KRW 415,172 million in the budget and value added tax) of the costs of general railroad maintenance and repair in 2009, and the government policy is determined based on the results of the government's calculation standards of the usage fees of tracks, etc. shall be followed. The Railroad Corporation shall pay the usage fees, such as tracks, to the bank account designated by the plaintiff according to the payment notice issued by the plaintiff for each quarter: Provided, That if necessary, it may offset the maintenance and repair costs of the general railroad to be paid by the plaintiff to the Railroad Corporation.

(4) On May 4, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into the instant agreement with the Railroad Corporation, setting the period of use from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010, with the period of use, and entered into the instant agreement. The portion that differs from the previous agreement, which is related to the instant case, is as follows.

Article 8 (Charges Fees for Railroad, etc.) (1) of the Table included in the main sentence of this Decree shall pay railroad tracks, etc. that a plaintiff provides. (2) In accordance with paragraph (1), the usage fees for railroad tracks, etc. to be paid by the Korea Railroad Corporation in 2010 shall be 390,189 million won (including value-added tax) excluding the amount of reduction of or exemption from government fees for railroad maintenance and repair costs in 2010,000 won, 70% of the total amount of general railroad maintenance and repair costs in 2010,000,000 won, and the government policy shall be determined based on the results of the government's calculation of service charges for railroad tracks, etc.

(5) On December 16, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into the instant railroad use agreement with the Korea Railroad, setting the period of use from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 201, and setting the period of use as from December 31, 2011. The portion that differs from the previous contract is as follows.

Article 8 (Charges Fees for Railroad, etc.) (1) of the Table contained in the main sentence of this Decree shall pay the railroad tracks, etc. that the plaintiff provides. (2) The usage fees for railway tracks, etc. to be paid by the Korea Railroad Corporation in the year 2011 under paragraph (1) shall be 409,567 million won (including value-added tax) excluding the amount of reduction or exemption of the Government's usage fees for railway tracks in the total amount of expenses for maintenance and repair of general railroads in the year 2011, and if the government policy (including the time of application) is determined according to the results of the government's service standards for the calculation of the user fees for railway tracks, etc., the provisions of Article 9 (Payment of Charges for Railroad tracks, etc.) are maintained as they are to offset general railroad expenses, such as railway tracks, etc.

(6) On March 30, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into the instant agreement with the Korea Railroad, setting the period of use from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012, and setting the period of use as from December 31, 2012. The portion that differs from the previous agreement is as follows.

(2) The method of payment and the timing of payment shall be dealt with by mutual consultation between the two institutions, with the exception of the amount of reduction or exemption of the Government's track usage fees of KRW 401,15 million (including value-added tax), and the government policy (including the timing of application) is determined in accordance with the result of the government's calculation of the service charges for the track use fees. Article 9 (Payment of Railroad Fees, etc.) shall be paid to the bank account designated by the parties to the contract in accordance with the payment notice issued by the Plaintiff for each quarter.

3) Issuance of tax invoices to the Plaintiff of the Railroad Corporation

From 2009 to 2012, the Railroad Corporation issued a tax invoice to the Government by stating 30% of the total maintenance expenses to be paid under the contract of this case as the person to whom the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport is supplied, while 70% of the total maintenance expenses are offset by the usage fees such as tracks to be paid between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and then issued a tax invoice (the tax invoice of this case) to the Plaintiff by stating the Plaintiff as the person to whom the maintenance and repair services are supplied.

4) Conclusion of the instant maintenance and repair contract between the Plaintiff and the Railroad Corporation after 2013

(A) On January 9, 2013, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport publicly announced the Plaintiff and the Railroad Corporation “The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport directly performed the management of maintenance and repair entrustment contracts, planning, management, supervision, and settlement, etc. during that period, and the Plaintiff was excluded from the maintenance and repair work, thereby making it impossible to efficiently perform the maintenance and repair work.” From 2013, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport officially announced that the State changed the entity in charge of the maintenance and repair of general railroads to the Plaintiff.”

The changes in the general railroad maintenance work system of the improvement plan are as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

(B) Accordingly, on March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for maintenance and repair (hereinafter “maintenance contract for 2013”) with the Korea Railroad, setting the term of the entrustment contract from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015. Of them, the part relating to the instant case is as follows.

Article 2 (Scope of Entrustment) ① The scope of the Plaintiff’s entrustment to the Railroad Corporation shall be limited to the maintenance and repair (including management of defects) of tracks, buildings, electric power, signal, information and communication, soundproof walls, railroad traffic control facilities, etc. (hereinafter “railroad facilities”) of the State-owned railroads. However, this shall not include platforms, connecting passages, underground stations, and buildings related to railroad facilities which are leased without compensation to the Railroad Corporation. (1) The project cost required for the entrusted project (hereinafter “entrusted project cost”) shall be the fixed amount for the relevant year (excluding the input tax amount that can be deducted by the Railroad Corporation), and the Plaintiff shall be notified in a separate document. ② The entrusted project cost shall be divided into the portion to be borne by the State (hereinafter “State-owned portion”) and the portion to be appropriated as railroad facility usage fees (hereinafter “maintenance and repair plan”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles and the issues of the instant case

The Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11608, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter “Value-Added Tax Act”) provides that the supply of goods or services by a business entity is a taxable transaction (Article 1(1)1); “services” refers to all services and other acts that have property value other than goods (Article 1(3)); and “business entity liable to pay value-added tax” refers to a person who independently supplies services for business regardless of whether the business purpose is profit-making or non-profit (Article 2(1)1). Meanwhile, “supply of services” refers to the provision of services for all contractual or legal grounds (Article 7(1)1).

Article 17 (2) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that an input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where all or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter “necessary entry items”) are entered in the tax invoice issued, and Article 16 (1) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount. Article 16 (1) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that

Therefore, whether the instant tax invoice entered as the Plaintiff constitutes “unlawful tax invoice” depends on whether the Plaintiff received the supply of general railroad facility services from the Korea Railroad Corporation due to contractual or legal causes during the instant VAT taxable period.

2) Whether legal grounds exist

A) Terms and conditions of the Framework Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply)

Article 20 of the Framework Act provides that railroad facilities shall be owned by the State, and the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport shall establish and implement policies, such as construction and management of railroad facilities, maintenance and repair of railroad facilities, and maintenance of appropriate conditions, and the Plaintiff shall be established as an organization that performs duties related to railroad facilities. According to the above provision, although maintenance and repair duties of a general railroad are clear, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff is in direct charge of maintenance and repair duties by

On the other hand, Article 38 of the Framework Act provides that the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport shall entrust the Railroad Corporation with the duties of maintaining and repairing railroad facilities, and it is clear that the provider of maintenance and repair services is the Railroad Corporation, but there is no provision about

B) Details of the provisions of the Railroad Facilities Corporation Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply)

Article 7 of the Railroad Facilities Corporation Act provides that the Corporation carries out projects, such as the construction and management of railroad facilities, the development, management, and support of technology for railroad facilities, and Article 8 of the same Act provides that when the Plaintiff carries out projects under Article 7, necessary measures, such as building a mutual cooperation system with the railroad operator, shall be prepared. Matters necessary for the construction, maintenance, management, and management of railroad facilities, development of station areas, etc., and matters necessary for mutual cooperation and consultation between the Plaintiff and the railroad operator, such as plans for construction, maintenance, management, and development of station areas, etc. shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry

3) Whether there exists a cause of the contract

A) the existence of an explicit contract

The facts that the parties to the instant maintenance and repair contract were the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and the Railroad Corporation, and that the maintenance and repair contract between the Plaintiff and the Railroad Corporation was not concluded before 2013 are as seen earlier

On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant asset management contract and the instant maintenance contract were concluded between the State, the Plaintiff, and the 3rd parties. However, on the other hand, the instant asset management contract between the State and the Plaintiff, and the maintenance and repair contract between the State and the Korea Land, Infrastructure and Transport, it is difficult to deem that the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Korea Railroad has been concluded.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the contract was not concluded properly due to the difference between the Plaintiff and the Railroad Corporation. However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff was established on January 1, 2004, and the Railroad Corporation on January 1, 2005, it is difficult to view the difference in the time of establishment as a justifiable reason not clearly correct the maintenance and repair contract of this case until 2013.

B) the existence of an implied contract

The plaintiff asserts that the relationship between the plaintiff and the railroad construction constitutes a relationship of maintenance and repair services under an implied contract.

(1) As can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, the foregoing assertion is against the contents of the instant maintenance and repair contract (the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, other than the Plaintiff, is a party to a contract with the National Railroad), the Plaintiff’s exclusion from the general railroad maintenance and repair business until the cause of concluding the 2013 maintenance and repair contract between the Plaintiff and the National Railroad was to improve the insolvency of the maintenance and repair business, and the duty to pay the maintenance and repair expenses under the instant maintenance and repair contract is classified by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. As such, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff is the party to whom the 70% of the track user fee and the maintenance and repair costs are owed or the party to whom the 70% of the track user fee and the maintenance and repair costs are provided. In full view of the foregoing, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s relationship between the Plaintiff and the National Railroad is established,

(2) On this issue, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff was supplied with maintenance and repair services on behalf of the State as a person in charge of maintenance and repair work or a managing authority, on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff was provided with basic data necessary for the establishment of the maintenance and repair plan by the Railroad Corporation, which is an implementing agency for the maintenance and repair work; (b) prepared the budget by estimating the required expenses; and (c) instructed the Railroad Corporation to give instructions for maintenance and repair; and (d) the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport also expresses that the Plaintiff

According to the statement No. 11-3 and No. 12-1 through 18 of the evidence No. 11-3 and No. 12-1 and 18, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, in response to the defendant's response or the request for cooperation, sent an official document stating that "the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport has made the plaintiff perform the duties of maintaining and repairing general railroad facilities on behalf of the plaintiff, and the tax disposition is imposed on the plaintiff, which is a non-capital special company, positive review to maintain the deduction of value-added tax (purchase purchase tax) in consideration of the problems such as the provision of the budget, etc., and it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's status as a person in charge of maintenance and repair or the management authority is not created only with the opinion of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport that the plaintiff performed such duties as alleged by the plaintiff in relation to the maintenance and repair. In light of the above, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's duty of maintenance

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant tax invoice is issued as a person who is supplied with the Plaintiff, who does not have any legal or contractual ground to receive the services for maintaining and repairing general railroad facilities, and it does not constitute a false tax invoice, and thus, the relevant input tax amount should not be deducted from the output tax amount. Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful on the same premise, and

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance with different conclusions is unfair, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)

1) The proviso of Article 56(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that if a decision on the request for examination or adjudgment is not notified within the period for decision of 90 days from the date of the request, an administrative litigation may be instituted from the date the prescribed period for decision expires even before the decision is notified, the application of the necessary principle for decision-making. In light of the legislative intent of this Article, it is reasonable to view that, in an administrative litigation on the disposition imposing national taxes, a request for examination or adjudgment has been lawfully filed and withdrawn in accordance with the relevant provisions, and the period for decision-making has expired within 90 days from the date of

2) The former Minister of Construction and Transportation or the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs shall be listed as the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs under the name

3) The definitions of terms used in this Act are as follows: 2. The term "railroad facilities" means facilities (including sites) falling under any of the following items: (a) Railroad tracks (including facilities attached to tracks), station facilities (including logistics facilities, transfer facilities, convenience facilities, etc.); (b) Track repair bases to repair and maintain tracks and rolling stock; (c) Railroad maintenance bases to repair and maintain tracks and rolling stock; (d) Railroad electric power facilities, information and communications facilities, signal and train control facilities; (d) Facilities necessary to link and operate railroads or with other means of transportation:

(4) Article 36 (Charges for Railroad Facilities Management) (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Private Participation in Infrastructure (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18736 of March 8, 2005) (1) In determining usage fees of lines, etc. under Article 35 (1) 1, a railroad facility manager shall collect the relevant expenses, such as expenses for the maintenance and repair of lines, etc. within the scope not exceeding the limit falling under any of the following subparagraphs: Provided, That the railroad facility manager for whom the management and operation rights of infrastructure are established under Article 26 of the Act on Private Participation in Infrastructure shall determine usage fees of lines, etc. in accordance with the provisions of the Act on Private Participation in Infrastructure: 1. The total amount of maintenance and repair expenses of lines, etc. other than lines, etc. under subparagraph 1: The total amount of maintenance and repair expenses of the relevant lines, etc. and the total construction expenses (referring to the amount excluding the expenses borne by the State, local governments, or beneficiaries under Article 37 (1) of the Act):

5) Although the Value-Added Tax Act was revised eight times during the instant taxable period, it is necessary to review the amendment prior to the amendment by Act No. 11608, Jan. 1, 2013, which was the Act prior to the final taxable period of the Value-Added Tax Act, as the amendment was made pursuant to the amendment of other Acts or subordinate statutes, such as convenience of business operators, activation of electronic tax invoices, exemption and imposition of value-added tax, reduction of individual business operators’ tax burden, credit card-related Acts and subordinate statutes.

(6) While the Framework Act was enacted on July 29, 2003 and came into force on October 30, 2003, eight amendments have been made to the Framework Act. However, since the amendment was made pursuant to the amendment of other Acts, such as the Government Organization Act, or the amendment of the joint penal provisions for business owners in order to accomplish the principle of accountability concerning criminal punishment, it does not change its actual contents. Thus, the amendment prior to the amendment of the Act prior to the last taxable period of the Value-Added Tax in this case, which was the Act prior to the taxable period of the Value-Added Tax in this case, should be examined as the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

7) The Railroad Facilities Corporation Act was amended on January 30, 2009 on January 30, 2009 during the imposition period of the value-added tax, but in fact, it was applied to the period prior to the taxable period of the value-added tax of this case. Thus, prior to the amendment by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013, which was the Act prior to the final taxable period of the value-added tax of this case