[1] Whether broadcasting services made by receiving fees, national subsidies, and broadcasting development funds constitute a non-taxable business under the Value-Added Tax Act (affirmative)

[2] Whether Article 61 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, which is a provision on the method of calculating common input tax, may apply mutatis mutandis where the same entrepreneur concurrently operates the value-added tax taxable and the non-taxable business (affirmative)

[3] The method of calculating the portion that can be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the actual attribution of input tax amounts related to taxable business, tax exemption business, and non-taxable business cannot be separated in the calculation of value-added tax

[1] A receiving fee cannot be deemed as a fee paid for the broadcast service provided by the Educational Broadcasting System. Moreover, since national subsidies and the Broadcasting Development Fund cannot be deemed as a payment for the broadcast service provided by the said business operator, it has the nature of public subsidies excluded from the tax base of value-added tax pursuant to Article 13(2)4 of the Value-Added Tax Act. Therefore, the portion of receiving fees, national subsidies, and the broadcast development fund, out of the broadcast service provided by the said business operator, constitutes a supply of free services in relation to the general viewers, barring any special circumstances that may recognize a quid pro quo relationship, such as being related to the advertising broadcast, constitutes a supply of free services, and thus, it

[2] Since an input tax amount deduction under Article 17(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act is for goods or services, etc. used or to be used for a taxable business, the input tax amount for goods, services, etc. used or to be used for a taxable business is not an input tax amount subject to such deduction. In this regard, the input tax amount for goods, services, etc. used or to be used for a taxable business is not different from the input tax amount for goods, services, etc. used or to be used for a taxable business. In addition, when the same entrepreneur concurrently operates a taxable business and a non-taxable business, if there is a common tax amount that cannot be separated from the tax amount for goods, etc. used or to be used for a taxable business, it is reasonable to view that Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, which provides for the methods of reasonably allocating the undeductible input tax amount related to a taxable business among input tax amount related to the taxable business, should apply to the case where the same entrepreneur concurrently operates the taxable business and the non-taxable business.

[3] In cases where the actual attribution of input tax amounts related to taxable business, tax-free business, and non-taxable business cannot be separated from the common input tax amounts, Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the calculation of the ratio of the value of supply for taxable business and tax-free business to the sum of all the values of supply for each taxable business and tax-free business and revenues related to the non-taxable business, and only the relevant input tax

[1] Articles 7(3) and 13(2)4 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Articles 36, 37, 38, 64, 65, 66, and 68 of the former Broadcasting Act (amended by Act No. 6869 of May 10, 2003), Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Broadcasting Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17968 of April 17, 2003) / [2] Article 17(1) and (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act / [3] Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2004Du13288 decided Oct. 27, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 2021)

Korea Educational Broadcasting Corporation (Law Firm, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Yu-pon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of the Seocho District Tax Office (Law Firm Han, Attorney Noh Jeong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

November 5, 2008

1. All of the Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on September 26, 2003 against the first term portion of 597,646,500 won for the year 2001, the second term portion of 649,029,380 won for the year 2001, the first term portion of 168,474,080 won for the year 202, and the second term portion of 2002 to 604,074,100 won for the second term of 202 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity established on March 12, 200 under the Korea Educational Broadcasting System Act, which performs the business of conducting television education, radio education, and satellite education, and conducting the business of establishing, operating, and managing broadcasting facilities, conducting programs production and supply, and conducting supervision and international exchange of educational events, and conducting surveys and research on educational broadcasts.

B. In filing a return on the tax base and its amount of value-added tax from the beginning 2001 to 2002, the Plaintiff deemed that the receiving fee, the Broadcasting Development Fund, and the National Treasury subsidy (hereinafter “receiving fee, etc.”) as the price for the broadcast service provided by the Plaintiff constituted the amount of tax-free services under Article 12 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6905 of May 29, 2003; hereinafter “Value-Added Tax Act”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s sales on the income statement are classified as a taxable business and tax-free business as shown below [1], and then the Plaintiff’s common input tax amount for the taxable business and the tax-free business operated by the Plaintiff was calculated in accordance with Article 61(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 17827 of Dec. 30, 202; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act”) and deducted the input tax amount corresponding to the total output tax amount [2]

[Attachment 1]

본문내 포함된 표 구분 2001년 1기 2001년 2기 2002년 1기 2002년 2기 과세사업/면세사업 과세사업/면세사업 과세사업/면세사업 과세사업/면세사업 방송발전기금수익 /8,476,168,000 /8,714,103,339 /10,539,207,000 /4,971,560,573 수신료 수익 /6,617,020,014 /6,687,674,951 /6,769,914,895 /6,889,699,704 보조금 수익 /1,000,000,000 /1,000,000,000 /1,000,000,000 /1,000,000,000 자료보급면세수익 /26,000,000 /24,375,000 ？ ？ 해외자료보급수익 /12,159,900 /35,446,800 /54,818,387 /70,317,298 후원회 수익 /2,481,212 ？ /1,732,568 ？ 수탁사업수익 ？ /78,217,430 /16,229,360 /82,348,500 잡수익(방송대등) /24,823,200 /53,980,840 /54,939,180 /54,939,180 교재판매수익(직판) /98,546,825 /770,683,856 /275,732,674 /525,116,063 교재판매수익(인세) 11,442,348,086/ 11,291,481,744/ 14,183,707,606/ 9,349,773,904/ 교재광고수익 158,227,274/ 232,363,638/ 230,727,274/ 232,909,092/ 자료보급사업수익 2,894,301,069/ 3,431,012,465/ 3,740,000,396/ 3,837,288,007/ 방송광고수익 8,106,429,000/ 10,450,038,000/ 11,401,266,000/ 13,234,965,000/ 제작협찬사업수익 2,341,098,100/ 2,615,982,905/ 3,020,122,345/ 2,492,943,639/ 뉴미디어사업수익 388,993,092/ 369,988,298/ 1,438,246,544/ 1,984,959,092/ 기타수익 2,409,090/ 11,671,037/ 10,088,800/ 21,927,274/ 합계 25,333,805,711 / 28,402,538,087 / 34,024,158,965 / 31,154,766,008 / 16,257,199,151 17,364,482,216 18,712,574,064 13,593,981,318 면세비율 39.1% 37.9% 35.5% 30.4%

[Attachment 2]

본문내 포함된 표 연 도 신고기간 구 분 예정신고 확정신고 합 계 2001년 1기(1월 ~ 6월) 매출세액 1,078,703,619 1,454,676,951 2,533,380,570 매입세액 총 매입세액 810,774,561 725,894,331 1,536,668,892 공제받지 못할 매입세액 5,211,656 2,490,379 7,702,035 공통매입세액 805,562,905 723,403,952 1,528,966,857 공통매입세액 과세사업분 479,119,150 452,201,202 931,320,352 공통매입세액 면세사업분 326,443,755 271,202,750 597,646,505 차감계 479,119,150 452,201,202 931,320,352 납부세액 599,584,469 1,002,475,749 1,602,060,218 2기(7월 ~ 12월) 매출세액 1,376,877,996 1,463,673,994 2,840,551,990 매입세액 총 매입세액 837,982,611 877,104,530 1,715,087,141 공제받지 못할 매입세액 2,112,465 2,348,296 4,460,761 공통매입세액 835,870,146 874,756,234 1,710,626,380 공통매입세액 과세사업분 560,088,622 501,508,366 1,061,596,988 공통매입세액 면세사업분 275,781,524 373,247,868 649,029,392 차감계 560,088,622 501,508,366 1,061,596,988 납부세액 816,789,374 962,165,628 1,778,955,002 2002년 1기(1월 ~ 6월) 매출세액 1,495,374,267 1,906,743,447 3,402,117,714 매입세액 총 매입세액 631,765,350 2,667,421,396 3,299,186,746 공제받지 못할 매입세액 1,749,252 4,384,071 6,133,323 공통매입세액 630,016,098 2,663,037,325 3,293,053,423 공통매입세액 과세사업분 436,205,890 1,688,373,444 2,124,579,334 공통매입세액 면세사업분 193,810,208 974,663,881 1,168,474,089 차감계 436,205,890 1,688,373,444 2,124,579,334 납부세액 1,059,168,377 218,370,003 1,277,538,380 2기(7월 ~ 12월) 매출세액 1,657,330,293 1,466,081,471 3,123,411,764 매입세액 총 매입세액 816,622,762 1,177,140,727 1,993,763,489 공제받지 못할 매입세액 2,127,390 3,141,407 5,268,797 공통매입세액 814,495,372 1,173,999,320 1,988,494,692 공통매입세액 과세사업분 566,571,165 817,849,417 1,384,420,582 공통매입세액 면세사업분 247,924,207 356,149,903 604,074,110 차감계 566,571,165 817,849,417 1,384,420,582 납부세액 1,090,759,128 648,232,054 1,738,991,182

C. After that, on July 25, 2003, the Plaintiff received the receiving fees, etc. without supplying goods and services, a broadcast that is made by receiving fees, etc. does not fall under the taxable business under the Value-Added Tax Act, but the tax-free business. Therefore, in calculating the common purchase tax amount, when excluding receiving fees, etc. from the total supply price and the tax-free supply price, the ratio of the total supply price would be less than 5%, and thus, when excluding the receiving fees, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction of the amount of value-added tax as shown in the following [Attachment 3] on the ground that the total amount of the tax amount deducted from the input tax amount related to the tax-free business should be refunded pursuant to Article 61(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the correction request within 20 months from the date of receiving the request for correction within 20 months from the date of receiving the request for correction under Article 45-2(3) of the former Framework Act (hereinafter “Framework’s Framework Act”).

[Attachment 3]

본문내 포함된 표 연도 신고기간 구분 예정신고기간 확정신고 기간 최초 신고/ 경정 청구/ 차이 최초 신고/ 경정 청구/ 차이 2001년 1기(1 ~ 6월) 매출세액 1,078,703,619 / 1,454,676,951 / 1,078,703,619 / 1,454,676,951 / 0 0 매입세액 479,119,150 / 452,201,202 / 805,562,905 / 723,403,952 / (326,443,755) (271,202,750) 납부세액 599,584,469 / 1,002,475,749 / 273,140,714 / 731,272,999 / 326,443,755 271,202,750 2기(7 ~ 12월) 매출세액 1,376,877,996 / 1,463,673,994 / 1,376,877,996 / 1,463,673,994 / 0 0 매입세액 560,088,622 / 501,508,366 / 835,870,146 / 874,756,234 / (275,781,524) (874,756,234) 납부세액 816,789,374 / 962,165,628 / 541,007,850 / 588,917,760 / 275,781,524 373,247,868 2002년(1 ~ 6월) 1기 매출세액 1,495,374,267 / 1,906,743,447 / 1,495,374,267 / 1,906,743,447 / 0 0 매입세액 436,205,890 / 1,688,373,444 / 630,016,098 / 2,663,037,325 / (193,810,208) (974,663,881) 납부세액 1,059,168,377 / 218,370,003 / 865,358,169 / (756,293,878) / 193,810,208 974,663,881 2기(7 ~ 12월) 매출세액 1,657,330,293 / 1,466,081,471 / 1,657,330,293 / 1,466,081,471 / 0 0 매입세액 566,571,165 / 817,849,417 / 814,495,372 / 1,173,999,320 / (247,924,207) (356,149,903) 납부세액 1,090,759,128 / 648,232,054 / 842,834,921 / 292,082,151 / 247,924,207 356,149,903

D. Accordingly, on October 13, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a request with the National Tax Tribunal for a national tax trial on the disposition of this case. The National Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request as of September 13, 2006, on the ground that the disposition of this case rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s request for correction was lawful, on the grounds that the disposition of this case was lawful, on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s failure to separate between the input tax amount related to the tax transaction and the tax-free transaction, and the input tax amount related to the tax transaction, which may be deducted from the output tax amount, among the total input tax amount for each taxable period, cannot be determined.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-1 to 25, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, which is a provision on the calculation method of common input tax in cases of both taxable and tax-free businesses, cannot be applied to transactions related to receiving fees, etc. Rather, in cases of the concurrent operation of taxable businesses and tax-free businesses, Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, which is a provision on the calculation method of common input tax amounts, should not be applied. Rather, in cases of exclusion of receiving fees, etc. from the total supply value and the tax-free supply value, the ratio of the total supply value of the tax-free supply value to the total supply value is less than 5%, and the total input tax amount should be deducted from the output tax amount pursuant to Article 61(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act. Therefore, as the

Classification in the Schedules contained in the main sentence - 6,617,674,674,951 - - 1,000,000,000, - 164,011,137- - - 962,727, 9627, - 781, 381, - 9784, - 1678,781, - 3681, - 974, - 9781, - 974, 200,00- - 1,64,00,00,000, - 164,01, 137- - 962,70,70,962,70,962,703,926, - 253,781, -381, -375,281, -475

Classification in the Schedules contained in the main sentence - 6,769,914 - - 6,89,69,704 - - 1,000,00,000, - 403,4520,000, - 7200, - 7200,000 tax-free revenues - 732,721,7321,7427,721,741, - - revenue from tax-free broadcast development funds - 6,769,914,895 - - 6,889,69,69,704, - 1,00,00,00, - 403,452,169, - 7320,721,721, - 7321,741, - -2404,1596,365 -16364

(2) The defendant's assertion

In addition to the broadcast services rendered by receiving fees, etc. do not constitute a non-taxable business under the Value-Added Tax Act, and even if the Plaintiff does not separate the input tax amount related to the taxable business, tax-free business, and non-taxable business from the Plaintiff’s tax-free business, Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act applies mutatis mutandis to the calculation of the input tax amount among the common input tax amount by applying mutatis mutandis the ratio of the total revenue from total revenue including the receiving fees to the taxable business revenue, and then deducts the input tax amount corresponding to the corresponding taxable portion from the output tax amount. Therefore, the disposition of this case rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction is lawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Markets:

(1) The issues of the instant case and the order of discussion

The plaintiff's claim for correction of reduction is based on the premise that the broadcasting service conducted by receiving fees, etc. constitutes a non-taxable business, not a non-taxable business. The following is considered ① Whether broadcasting service conducted by receiving fees, etc. falls under a non-taxable business, ② whether Article 61 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act concerning the calculation method of common input tax may apply mutatis mutandis to the case where it is deemed that a non-taxable business falls under a non-taxable business, ③ whether the total value of supply and the amount of tax-free supply are excluded from receiving fees, etc. as alleged by the plaintiff when claiming for correction of reduction is below 5%, so that the ratio of the total value of supply to the total value of supply and the amount of tax-free supply to the total value of the tax-free supply to

(ii)whether broadcasting services conducted by receiving fees, etc. constitute non-taxable businesses;

(A) First of all, the receiving fees shall be collected from persons holding a television receiver for the purpose of receiving television broadcasts (Article 64 of the former Broadcasting Act (amended by Act No. 6869 of May 10, 2003; hereinafter the same shall apply). The amount of receiving fees shall be determined after deliberation and resolution by the board of directors of the Korean Broadcasting System and obtaining approval from the National Assembly through the Korean Broadcasting Commission, and the Korean Broadcasting System imposes and collects television (Article 65 of the same Act), and the Korean Broadcasting System shall impose and collect additional dues from persons not registered as a television, or those who have failed to pay the receiving fees, and the Korean Broadcasting System shall be able to collect from persons in arrears in accordance with the practices of default of national taxes (Article 6 of the same Act). The Korean Broadcasting System shall be able to use the amount equivalent to 3/100 of annual revenue from the Korea Educational Broadcasting System for the purpose of receiving TV broadcasts (Article 68 of the same Act and Article 64 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Broadcasting Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1798 of April 17, 2003).).

(B) Next, Article 13(2)4 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides national subsidies as one of the items that are not included in the tax base of value-added tax, and Article 13(2)4 provides that where an entrepreneur liable to pay value-added tax due to the supply of goods or services receives a national subsidy as an executor of a subsidized project subject to the grant of a national subsidy, he/she shall be construed to the effect that the relevant entrepreneur does not include the amount equivalent to the above national subsidy in the value-added tax base due to the supply of goods or services. Furthermore, it is difficult to view that the national subsidy received by the Plaintiff in this case is directly related to the broadcasting service provided by the Plaintiff. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that national

(C) Furthermore, the Broadcasting Development Fund is established by the Commission for the broadcasting promotion projects and the cultural and art promotion projects (Article 36 of the Broadcasting Act), and is used for educational broadcasts and other broadcasts operated for public purposes (Article 37 of the same Act). Under each of the above provisions, the Broadcasting Development Fund imposes on terrestrial broadcasting business operators and satellite broadcasting business operators to appropriate for the financing of expenses for the specific public service projects called the broadcasting promotion industry (Article 38 subparagraph 1 of the same Act). As such, the Broadcasting Development Fund has the nature of the aforementioned special charges as seen above, it is difficult to view it as a fee paid for the broadcasting services provided by the Plaintiff, and the Broadcasting Development Fund has the nature of public subsidies excluded from the tax base of value-added tax pursuant to Article 13 (2) 4 of the Value-Added Tax Act.

(D) Therefore, the portion of the broadcast service rendered by the Plaintiff based on receiving fees, etc. falls under the supply of free services in relation to the general viewers, unless there are other special circumstances to recognize a quid pro quo relationship, such as being related to advertising broadcasting, and thus, it is exempt from value-added tax under Article 7(3) of the Value-Adde

(3) Whether Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, which is a provision on the calculation method of common input tax, may apply mutatis mutandis to the case where a tax-free business, a taxable business, or

(A) According to Article 17(1) and (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act, an input tax amount for the goods or services used or consumed for a taxable business shall be deducted from the output tax amount, but the input tax amount for the goods or services used or consumed for a taxable business shall not be deducted. Accordingly, even where the same entrepreneur concurrently operates a taxable business and a tax-free business, the input tax amount for the goods or services used or used for a taxable business shall be deducted from the output tax amount for the taxable business in accordance with the principle of calculating the payable tax amount, and the input tax amount for the goods or services used or used for a taxable business shall not be deducted from the output tax amount for the taxable business. However, Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that where the same entrepreneur concurrently operates a taxable business and a tax-free business, the input tax amount shall not be deducted from the input tax amount for the taxable business, among the input tax amount related to the taxable business, which can be deducted from the output tax amount for the taxable business.

However, since the input tax amount to be deducted pursuant to Article 17(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act is for goods or services used or to be used for a taxable business, the amount of tax on goods or services, etc. used or to be used for a non-taxable business shall not be included in the input tax amount subject to such deduction. In this regard, the input tax amount on the goods or services, etc. used or to be used for a non-taxable business shall not be different from the input tax amount on the goods or services, etc. used or to be used for a non-taxable business. If the same entrepreneur concurrently operates a taxable business and a non-taxable business, if there is a common tax amount that cannot be distinguished from the actual attribution among the tax amount on the goods or services, etc. used or to be used for a non-taxable business, it shall be reasonable to view that Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act shall apply to the case where the same entrepreneur concurrently operates the non-taxable business (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du13288, Oct. 27, 2006).

(B) On this issue, the Plaintiff asserts that Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act applies mutatis mutandis to the concurrent operation of the Value-Added Tax taxable and the non-taxable business as seen in this case, ① is in violation of the principle of no taxation without law, and ② is contrary to the basic principle on the structure of calculating the value-added tax, which provides for the determination of whether to deduct the input tax amount after calculating the output tax amount by multiplying the tax base by the tax rate, and ③ a broadcast made by receiving fees, etc. falls under a free transaction, and thus,

On the other hand, Article 61(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides for a taxation requirement, etc. as an Act enacted by the National Assembly, which is a representative body of the people, and strictly interpret and apply it to the enforcement of the Act, and does not allow an extended interpretation or analogical interpretation. However, the tax law cannot provide for all phenomena according to social changes, and where there is no possibility of infringing a taxpayer's property right in light of the legislative purport or empirical rule, etc. as a provision on the method of calculation, it can be applied by analogy. Thus, Article 61(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act merely provides for the calculation method of a taxpayer's right and duty, rather than providing for the existence or scope of the taxpayer's right and duty, it is difficult to deem that such calculation method violates the no taxation without the law because it is merely a provision on the method of calculating the already scheduled tax amount.

In addition, Article 61 of the Value-Added Tax Act applies mutatis mutandis to the calculation method of the portion that can be deducted from the output tax amount among the common input tax amount, and it is entirely irrelevant to the legal principles as to the calculation structure of value-added tax as asserted by the plaintiff. ③ Revenue accruing from a non-taxable business is not included in the tax base of value-added tax, and the concept of "value of supply of non-taxable business" under the Value-Added Tax Act can be seen as a combination of terms that are incompatible with one another. However, at least in applying Article 61 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act to the same business operator concurrently operating a taxable business and non-taxable business as in this case, it shall be deemed that the business operator acquires it in connection with the non-taxable business or non-taxable business (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 299, Jan. 25, 2003). Thus, Article 18-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides for the scope of non-taxable tax exemption tax revenue amount for the pertinent taxable period.

(4) In the instant case, the method of calculating the portion that can be deducted from the output tax amount among the common input tax amount and the calculation of the legitimate tax amount

(A) On the premise that the broadcast service rendered by the Plaintiff at the time of filing a claim for correction against the Defendant constitutes a non-taxable business, the Plaintiff asserted that the total amount of revenue from receiving fees should be excluded from the total value of supply and the tax-free supply value in applying Article 61(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act. In addition, in such a case, the Plaintiff asserted that the total amount of tax-free supply value should be deducted from the output tax amount under the above provision because the total amount of tax-free supply value is less than 5%, and the common input tax amount related to the taxable business, the tax-free business, and the tax-free business should be deducted from the output tax amount under the above provision. In accordance with the Plaintiff’s above request for correction, the Plaintiff’s unfair refund of tax amount may result in the Plaintiff’s deduction from the output tax amount (the common input tax amount in this case includes the portion related to the portion related to the non-taxable business excluded from the input tax amount in addition to the input tax amount for the taxable business or the tax-free business. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for correction should not be included in the total input tax amount.

(B) Therefore, as long as the actual attribution of the input tax amount related to the taxable business, tax-free business, and non-taxable business cannot be separated from the common input tax amount, Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis, by calculating the ratio of the supply value of taxable business and the tax-free business to the total value of the supply value of the tax-free business to the total value of the tax-free business, and, based on this formula, only the input tax amount shall be deducted from the output tax amount. In accordance with such calculation formula, the portion that can be deducted from the common input tax amount should be calculated in the same way as the Plaintiff reported the input tax amount. Thus, in calculating the common input tax amount under Article 61(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act at the time of the return of the initial value-added tax, the sum of the supply value due to the taxable business and the supply value due to the tax-free business (the portion related to the received tax amount itself recognized as the supply value of the total supply value, and the Plaintiff's tax amount related to the above input tax amount shall be deducted from the total input tax amount.

(C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion disputing the illegality of the instant refusal disposition on the ground that the input tax amount related to the tax-exempt business was excessively assessed at the time of the initial declaration of value-added tax is not acceptable as it has no merit

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Acts and subordinate statutes: (Omission)

Judge Jeon Sung-soo (Presiding Judge)