Daegu District Court 2014Guhap20393

Construction services for balcony expansion shall not be deemed essential or ordinarily incidental to national housing supply services, and shall be subject to taxation.

The service of this case is determined by the choice of the buyer, and it is difficult to view that the supply of each apartment of this case is ordinarily included in the supply of each apartment of this case, or that it is incidental to the supply of each apartment of this case in light of transaction practice. Thus, it cannot be deemed that each apartment of this case is a service necessarily incidental to the supply of each apartment of this case.

Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value Added Tax Act

2015Nu6324 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax.

AA

O Head of tax office

Daegu District Court Decision 2014Guhap20393 Decided August 18, 2015

December 11, 2015

January 22, 2016

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

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

3. Paragraph 1 of the order of the judgment of the court of first instance states that "the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of the plaintiff" shall be corrected as "the plaintiff's claim" and Paragraph 2 states that "the plaintiff shall be corrected as "the plaintiff's price".

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. For the plaintiff, each disposition of imposition on each of the value-added taxes listed in the separate sheet No. 1 prepared by the director of the tax office of defendant OO is revoked; (2) each disposition of imposition on each of the value-added taxes listed in the separate sheet No. 2 prepared by the director of the tax office of defendant OO; (3) each disposition of imposition on each of the value-added taxes listed in the separate sheet No. 3 prepared by the director of the tax office of defendant OO; and (4) each disposition of imposition on each of the value-added taxes listed in the separate sheet No. 4 prepared by the director of the

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The grounds for the plaintiff's assertion in the trial while filing an appeal are different from the contents of the plaintiff's assertion in the first instance court, and the first instance court's decision rejecting the plaintiff's assertion is justified even if all the evidence submitted in the first instance court and the purport of the whole arguments in the first instance court and the first instance court are examined

Therefore, the court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of some contents as follows. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ The second judgment of the first instance court is the value-added tax that will be reduced to the fifth part of the judgment, as the value-added tax.

"791,651,453 won" in the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as "439,889,087 won", and "918,640,319 won" in the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as "420,203,331 won".

○ The value-added tax that reduces the fourth place of the judgment of the first instance court as the value-added tax.

The fifth column of the first instance court's decision "the case concerning the second disposition of this case by the defendant OO chief" is "the case concerning the second disposition of this case by the defendant OO chief of the tax office".

○ The term "former Housing Act" in the last half of the judgment of the first instance court is as the term "former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 10505, Mar. 30, 201)".

The "the following circumstances and circumstances" in the 8th instance judgment of the first instance court shall be considered as "the following circumstances":

Fourth, "107,087,933" in the partitions shall be "107,078,933" in the attached Table 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

○ The Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22626, Jan. 17, 201) is the same as the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22626, Jan. 17, 201).

2. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. In the disposition of the court of first instance, "the plaintiff's claim against the defendants" in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "the plaintiff's claim against the defendants", and "the plaintiff" in Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is obvious that it is a clerical error in the plaintiff's claim