(a) Purport of Article 4(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act;

(b) Method of calculating market prices under Article 13 (1) 3 of the Value-Added Tax Act;

A. Article 4(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that “The value-added tax shall be paid for each workplace” means that the value-added tax shall be paid for each workplace if one or more businesses have two or more workplaces, and it does not purport that a combined taxation should be made even if two or more businesses have one workplace.

B. In cases where Article 13 (1) 3 of the Value-Added Tax Act applies, the rent which is the market price of the service shall be the price established for the normal transaction with the unrelated parties, and in calculating it, it shall be done in a reasonable manner, such as an investigation, decision, or a request for appraisal to the appraiser, according to individual lease conditions, such as the conditions of the location, use, area of

(a) Article 4(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 13(1)3 of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 50(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Mapo Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu1038 Decided June 27, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the first ground for appeal:

Article 4 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "value-added tax shall be paid at each place of business," but the above provision is interpreted to mean that the value-added tax shall be paid at each place of business where one or more business operators have two or more places of business, and even if two or more business operators have one place of business, it shall not be integrated to taxation.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the land of this case was owned by the plaintiff and 88 Mabbbe, 5 bbeb, 103 5 bbeb, the plaintiff's wife, and determined that the tax disposition of this case was unlawful for the lease of the land owned by the non-party. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory

2. On the second ground for appeal:

Article 13 (1) 3 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the market price of goods or services supplied by a person who has no special relationship shall be the tax base amount for the supply of goods or services". Article 50 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the market price under any subparagraph of Article 13 (1) of the Act shall be the price formed in a normal transaction with a person who has no special relationship with the person who has no special relationship with the business". Under each of the above provisions, where Article 13 (1) 3 of the Value-Added Tax Act applies, where a business operator provides a person with a special relationship with the special relationship with the land with the land at an unreasonably low price or without receiving any consideration, the rent which is the market price of the service shall be the price formed in a normal transaction with the person who has no special relationship, and in calculating it, it shall be determined by a reasonable method, such as investigating the location, use, area, lease period, etc.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the calculation of the rent of the land of this case is unlawful as it lacks rationality and it is not erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles like the theory of lawsuit. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles.

3. Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, and 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 Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)