Cho High Court Decision 201Do1274 (OO27, 2012)

The Plaintiff’s services, which are specialized managers of rearrangement projects, do not constitute the land-related input tax amount.

The main purpose of an urban environment improvement project is to improve the urban environment, not to be deemed to be the development of land in a rearrangement zone, and the content of the first, second, and third services contracts in this case does not relate to the alteration of a specific use zone or the designation of a promotion district for balanced development, and the physical modification is not included in the form of land, it cannot be deemed that the value of the

2012Guhap24771 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AAAA Urban Environment Improvement Association

Head of Sungbuk Tax Office

March 8, 2013

March 29, 2013

1. Each disposition of value-added tax imposed on the Plaintiff on September 6, 2010 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff is revoked. Each disposition of KRW 100 for the first term in 2007, for the first term in 2008, for the second term in 2008, for the second term in 2008, for the first term in 2009, and for the second term in 2009, for the second term in 2009, and for the second term in 2000 for 209.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

It is as shown in the Disposition (the entry of KRW 000 in the part seeking the revocation of the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2009 seems to be a clerical error of KRW 000).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 7, 2006, the Plaintiff obtained approval from the head of Seongbuk-gu Promotion Committee for the Establishment of an association, and on August 31, 2009, as an urban environment improvement project cooperative under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the Plaintiff is proceeding with an urban environment improvement project (hereinafter referred to as the “project in this case”) by designating the first district of the Seongbuk-gu one as a project implementation district.

B. In order to promote the instant project, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for specialized management of rearrangement projects and a rearrangement project plan and district designation agreement on February 23, 2007 with the KoreaB Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “KoreaB Development”), and a contract for vicarious execution of a request for establishment consent on November 12, 2008. In addition, on March 24, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for building design services with the CC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “CC”) (hereinafter referred to as the “the above contract for specialized management of rearrangement projects”) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant 1 service contract”), while the 20 service contract for rearrangement projects and district designation was called the 3 service contract for the establishment of the association, and the 20-year purchase tax amount was calculated from the 1st purchase tax amount to the 20-year total purchase tax amount, and the 201-year purchase tax amount was calculated from the 20-year purchase tax amount, and the 207th purchase tax amount related to the 31st tax amount.

(Contents omitted)

D. However, with respect to the return of value-added tax on the first period portion in 2007, the second period portion in 2008, the first and second period portion in 2008, and the second period portion in 2009, and second period portion in the return of value-added tax, the Defendant considers that the input tax amount on the first and second service contracts of this case reported by the Plaintiff as common input tax amount is non-deductible, and determined the tax amount by adding additional tax, and then on September 6, 2010, the Defendant issued the first period portion in 2007, the first period portion in 2007, and the second period portion in 2008, and the second period portion in 2009, and the second period portion in 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “first disposition”).

E. On April 27, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the initial disposition, and the tax tribunal had the input tax related to the three service contracts of this case on April 27, 2012 as capital expenditures for the creation of land, and the input tax amount related to the building design service contracts betweenCC and other parties is an input tax amount common to the land and buildings, and it is reasonable to deduct the portion corresponding to the taxable business calculated in accordance with Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act on the ground that it is reasonable to deduct the portion corresponding to the taxable business calculated in accordance with Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act as the input tax amount calculated in accordance with Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act on the ground that the Defendant applied to the Plaintiff for a trial on the first half of the year 2007, and the first half of the year 2000, and the second half of the year 2009.

F. According to the decision of the Tax Tribunal, the Defendant decided to refund the value-added tax of KRW 000 and value-added tax of KRW 000 for the first period of 2008 and KRW 000 for the first period of 2009 [in the initial disposition of this case, the remainder other than the part determined by the Defendant according to the decision of the Tax Tribunal, and the first period of value-added tax of KRW 00 for the first period of 2007 (including additional tax of KRW 000), and the first period of 2008 (including additional tax of KRW 00,000, and including additional tax of KRW 00), and the second period of 2008 (including additional tax of KRW 00), and the first period of 1, 2009 (including KRW 000,000, and additional tax of KRW 000) for the second period of 209 (including additional tax of KRW 000).

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 4, Gap evidence 3, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

"The plaintiff's 1, 2, and 3 services provided by the Korean BB development, which is a management contractor for improvement projects, are administrative affairs for the establishment and approval of the promotion committee, overall administrative affairs for the implementation of the project after the establishment of the association, and administrative services required for the establishment of the association, and those related to the application for designation of the urban environment improvement zone, and input tax for the above services are those related to the capital expenditure for the creation, etc. of the land" in Article 17 (2) 4 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 60 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and where the building is purchased and used only for the construction of the land, it cannot be deemed that the "in relation to the acquisition and removal expenses of the removed building", and the "in relation to the expenses related to the construction of the factory site and the housing site" related to the urban environment improvement project, and the part related to the expenses related to the acquisition cost of the land is unlawful in the disposal of the plaintiff's input tax without deduction of the tax amount related to the capital expenditure."

Paper in the Appendix

C. Determination

1) Article 17(2)4 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that the input tax amount related to the business that supplies goods or services exempt from the value-added tax (including the input tax amount related to investment) as one of the input tax amount not deducted from the output tax amount, and Article 60(6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the input tax amount related to the land as prescribed by the Presidential Decree" refers to the tax amount related to the capital expenditure for the creation, etc. of the land, and Article 17(2)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the input tax amount related to the business that supplies the goods or services exempt from the value-added tax (including the input tax amount related to investment)" means the input tax amount related to the capital expenditure for the creation, etc. of the land, and Article 17(2)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the tax amount related to the land shall be reduced to 200 in real terms of the capital expenditure."

2) 갑 제3， 4， 5호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면， 한국BB개발은 원고에게， 이 사건 제1 용역계약 중 ①-1 추진위원회의 승인과 관련하여，㉠ 추진위원 회의 조직 및 운영규정 등의 작성，㉡ 개략적인 사업계획의 수립，㉢ 도시환경정비구역 내에 있는 토지 및 건축물의 소유자를 파악하여 예비조합원명부 작성，㉣ 조합설립 추 진위원회의 승인절차 이행 등의 용역을，①-2 정비구역지정과 관련하여，㉠ 정비구역 내 지적현황 조사를 통한 지번 및 지적현황표 작성，㉡ 지적현황표에 의한 토지 및 건축물 소유자 현황명부 작성，㉢ 정비구역지정신청에 관한 토지 등 소유자의 동의현황 조서 작성，㉣ 정비구역지정신청서의 제출 등 용역을， ①-3 조합설립인가와 관련하여 ㉠ 조합의 정관작성，㉡ 조합설립 동의자 명부 작성，㉢ 조합원 명부 작성，㉣ 개략적인 사업계획서 작성 등 용역을 제공하였고，② 이 사건 제2 용역계약과 관련하여，㉠ 현황조사，㉡ 도시환경정비계획수립， 심의보고서 작성 및 도시환경정비계획수립에 따른 대관 협의，㉢ 도시환경정비사업구역지정에 따른 대관 협의 등 용역을 제공하였으며，③ 이 사건 제3 용역계약과 관련하여，㉠ 조합설립동의서 관리 대행，㉡ 조합설립 동의서 청구 관련 비용 지급업무，㉢ 청구요원 인건비 및 활동비 지급 등 용역을 제공한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

3) In accordance with the above facts of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 9 and 10, the following circumstances, namely, Article 1 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the Act provides for matters necessary for planned rearrangement of areas where urban functions need to be recovered or residential environment is inferior and for efficient improvement of old and inferior buildings.

Article 2 (2) (d) of the Act provides that "the purpose of improving the quality of activity is to contribute to the improvement of urban environment", and Article 2 (2) (d) of the Act provides that "an urban environment improvement project" is "a project implemented to efficiently use land in a commercial area, industrial area, etc., and to improve urban environment in an area that requires the restoration of urban functions or the revitalization of business district, such as depth or in default." In light of the above provision, the main purpose of the urban environment improvement project is "the development of the land in the improvement zone" is not "the development of the land in the improvement zone," and the designation of the improvement zone itself cannot be considered to increase real value of the land in the improvement zone.

4) Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the input tax amount under the first, second, and third services contracts of this case constitutes “land-related input tax amount prescribed by the Presidential Decree” under Article 17(2) Subparag. 4 of the former Value-Added Tax Act is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.