Whether the workplace waste disposal services of a corporation established under the Local Public Enterprises Act are subject to taxation;

It is a taxable service that a corporation established by the State or a local government-invested or local government-invested corporation under the Public Enterprise Act carries out a business waste disposal service, and the decision of the National Tax Tribunal judged based on wrong facts cannot be deemed as not falling under the public opinion indication and thus, it also goes against the principle of trust and good faith.

Article 38 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Value-Added Tax Act, the scope of tax exemption for goods or services supplied by the State, local governments or local governments

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The decision of the first instance is revoked. The defendant revoked the defendant's disposition of imposition of value-added tax of 40,560,217 won for the first term of 200 on November 04, 2005, value-added tax of 88,051,84 won for the second term of 2000, value-added tax of 41,853,680 won for the first term of 2001, value-added tax of 95,757,838-added tax for the second term of 2001, value-added tax of 41,901,548 won for the first term of 202, value-added tax of 106,252,232 won for the second term of 202, value-added tax of 106,915,926, value-added tax for the first term of 203, value-added tax of 204,7147,2081.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From around 1994, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the non-party ○○ mayor to carry out the business of disposing of waste (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agency contract”) under which the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the non-party ○○○○○○○○○○ Province to carry out the business of disposing of waste.

B. In reporting value-added tax to the Defendant from January 2000 to February 2, 2004, the Plaintiff reported the instant agency contract on the agency project cost (hereinafter “instant agency project cost”) paid by ○○ City in relation to the disposal of commercial wastes (hereinafter “instant agency project cost”).

C. As to this, the Defendant considered the instant agency business expenses as a taxable object of value-added tax and included them in the Plaintiff’s base of value-added tax by each taxable period, added additional tax on negligent tax returns, erroneous tax payments, and additional tax on non-issuance of tax invoices or aggregate tax invoices to the Plaintiff on July 21, 2005, imposed upon the Plaintiff value-added tax amounting to KRW 48,965,550 for the first period of year 200, and imposed upon the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on the second period of year 2005, KRW 9,398,310 for the second period of year 200, KRW 47,973,20 for the first period of year 201, KRW 131,760, KRW 540 for the second period of year 201, KRW 68, value-added tax for the second period of year 205, KRW 205, KRW 204 for 205, KRW 365385, KRW 20585.

D. On October 18, 2005, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the first term of 200 years with the Director of the Regional Tax Office. The Director of the Regional Tax Office of 006. 17. 2006. 4% of the value-added tax was reduced to 40,560,217. 2. 2. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the first term of 206. 4% of the amount of value-added tax for the second term of 206. 4% of the amount of value-added tax for the second term of 206. 4% of the amount of value-added tax for the second term of 207. 4% of the amount of value-added tax for the second term of 205, 207. 4% of the amount of value-added tax for the second term of 206. 3% of the amount of value-added tax for the second term of 205% of 207.

Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 7 through 9, Gap evidence 12, Eul evidence 14, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The parties' assertion

As to the Defendant’s assertion that each of the dispositions of this case is a legitimate disposition under the relevant laws, the Plaintiff asserts that each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.

(1) Services subject to exemption and the terms and conditions of entrustment;

The plaintiff

As a result, the instant agency contract’s services under the instant agency contract are substantially provided by ○○ City. Therefore, the value-added tax shall not be imposed on the Plaintiff, who is the trustee, because it is subject to exemption under the Value-Added Tax Act.

(2) Prices for the provision of waste disposal services and the instant agency business expenses

Among the instant agency project costs, the remainder, other than the agency fees, is not a quid pro quo relationship with the industrial waste treatment services, nor is the Plaintiff simply paid expenses to be borne by the Daejeon Metropolitan City. Therefore, it is not subject to value-added tax.

(3) Violation of the principle of good faith and the principle of good faith

The National Tax Tribunal decided that the plaintiff's business of operating and managing waste disposal facilities is eligible for the exemption of value-added tax. Accordingly, the defendant has already refunded part of the value-added tax to the plaintiff through the decision of correction, and thereafter, each disposition of this case is contrary to the principle of good faith and the principle of good faith and the principle of good faith, since more than five years have passed since the plaintiff did not impose value-added tax on the business waste disposal services.

(4) Additional tax imposition

In light of the circumstances described in the above Paragraph (3), the plaintiff is deemed to have justifiable grounds for failure to pay the value-added tax imposed by the defendant. In particular, with respect to each value-added tax from January 200 to January 2001, the plaintiff already paid the value-added tax to the defendant, but was refunded from the defendant according to the decision of the National Tax Tribunal. If the circumstances arise, it is reasonable that the plaintiff did not report and pay the value-added tax on the agency project cost of this case, and thus, it is illegal to impose the additional tax.

(b) Related statutes;

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

C. Determination

(1) Whether the service subject to exemption or the service or the consignment is in a relationship

In light of the facts revealed in Paragraph 1, the Defendant’s use of each of the dispositions in this case as the object of value-added tax is limited to the services provided by the Plaintiff to ○○ City under the instant agency contract, and the Plaintiff’s use of workplace wastes brought in by business operators is not subject to taxation, etc., each of the dispositions in this case does not constitute an exemption under Article 12(1)17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7007 of Dec. 30, 2003) and Article 38 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1930 of Dec. 17, 2006; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree”).

In addition, Article 6 (5) of the Value-Added Tax Act is applicable to sale by consignment or agent.

Although the provision stipulates that "the truster or the principal directly supplies or is supplied with goods: Provided, That this shall not apply where the truster or the principal is unknown, the provision applies only to the business related to a third party who is entrusted by the ○○ City and treated by the plaintiff, i.e., waste discharging business, etc. related to the plaintiff and the bringing-in of wastes, and it cannot be applied to the services provided by the plaintiff to ○○

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is groundless.

(2) Whether the portion of the instant agency project cost, excluding agency fees, is in a quid pro quo relationship with waste disposal services

(A) According to Article 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 48(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, the tax base includes payments, charges, fees, and all other monetary values related to consideration, regardless of the pretext thereof, which are received from a trader.

(B) In full view of the purport of the argument as a whole in the statement in the Evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2-1 through 5, 12-1, 14, 16, and 16, the Plaintiff and ○○ Metropolitan City concluded the instant agency contract as to the conclusion of the contract, the Plaintiff and ○○ City determined the agency project cost of this case by total amount each year. 2) As such, the Plaintiff, in relation to the instant agency contract, paid the agency project cost of this case to ○○ City each year from ○○○ City, in total, in total the expenses for the project (facility cost, personnel expenses, allowances, retirement allowances, travel expenses, consumption expenses, public expenses, public expenses, etc.), capital budget (construction cost, etc.), and the agency project cost of this case composed of agency fees. 3) The Plaintiff accounts the entire agency project cost of this case as independent revenue and expenditure. 4. The Plaintiff’s employee appointed the representative director of the Plaintiff from among the agency project cost of this case, and 5.

In full view of the purport of the above-mentioned provisions, facility expenses, personnel expenses, expenses, etc. included in the agency business expenses of this case are not merely spent by the plaintiff for the ○○ City, but for the handling of waste disposal services provided to the ○○○ City, and are included in the "money, fees, fees, and all other monetary values in a quid pro quo relationship" under Article 13 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 48 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du10707, Apr. 11, 2003). Thus, the entire agency business expenses of this case, including such money, are in a quid pro quo relationship with the plaintiff's waste disposal services.

(C) Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 2-1 to No. 5 and evidence No. 12 of the instant agency contract, in relation to the instant agency contract, if the Plaintiff was to compile a budget in advance by the end of August of the previous year and execute it within the scope of approval, and if there is an important change in the approved execution items, it shall obtain approval from ○○○ City, and if there is an agreement to report the settlement of entrusted expenses to ○○ City by March of the following year, it shall not be deemed to have been for the purpose of settling the expenses incurred by the Plaintiff, personnel expenses, expenses, and expenses incurred by ○○ City, but it shall not be deemed to have been controlled by ○○ City on the expenditure of the entire agency project expenses, including agency fees, on the ground that the Plaintiff is a corporation established by ○○ City or a local public enterprise law in which the Plaintiff was in an investment relationship with ○○ City, and thus, it shall not be deemed to have denied the payment relationship between the expenses incurred in the instant agency project expenses, personnel expenses, expenses, expenses, and the Plaintiff waste disposal services.

(D) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(3) Whether the principle of good faith or the principle of good faith is violated

(A) According to each description of Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 13, Eul evidence 16 (including various numbers), and Eul evidence 16 (including each number), the National Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to revoke and correct the taxation of the part concerning the disposal of domestic wastes on the premise that the plaintiff's disposal of domestic wastes is exempted from value-added tax on December 22, 2000, on the premise that the disposal of domestic wastes by the plaintiff is a domestic waste disposal service, and on the premise that the disposal of domestic wastes by the plaintiff is exempted from value-added tax on the other hand, the National Tax Tribunal did not impose value-added tax on the plaintiff's agency until before 2005, but did not impose value-added tax on the plaintiff's business since it did not violate the principle of trust and good faith on the part concerning the disposal of domestic wastes from February 1, 1994 to January 199 imposed on the report (hereinafter "the decision of the National Tax Tribunal of this case").

(B) Furthermore, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the mere fact that the Defendant imposed no value-added tax on the Plaintiff’s industrial waste treatment services for five (5) years following the decision of the National Tax Tribunal of this case does not violate the principle of good faith and sincerity under tax law (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu12919, Oct. 23, 1993). Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(4) Whether the imposition of additional tax is illegal

(A) Under the tax law, where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a tax return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, an additional tax is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the tax law, and the taxpayer’s intent or negligence is not considered, but does not constitute justifiable grounds that do not cause the taxpayer’s breach of his/her duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du10780, Feb. 24, 2004).

As recognized in Section 2-C (3) above, the decision of the National Tax Tribunal of this case determined that the whole of the plaintiff's waste disposal services is not exempted from value-added tax, but is exempted from only the part of the daily waste disposal services. Thus, it seems that the plaintiff's acceptance of the whole waste disposal services is erroneous in understanding the purport of the decision of the National Tax Tribunal of this case, and such error does not constitute justifiable grounds for exemption from the penalty tax in each disposition of this case.

(B) Meanwhile, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements No. 6-11, No. 18-2, and No. 18-4, the Defendant is recognized as having rendered a decision of correction according to the Plaintiff’s request for correction as to each value-added tax on each of the value-added tax returned and paid by the Plaintiff from January 200 to January 200, and refunded the reduced tax amount.

However, according to Eul evidence Nos. 13-2 and Eul evidence Nos. 18-2 through 4, the plaintiff filed a request for correction of value-added tax from the first half to the first half of the year 2000 to the first half of the year 2001. However, it was only the value-added tax for the second half of the year 2000. ② The defendant made a decision of refund for the first half of the year 2000 and the first half of the year 2001 on the basis of the increase in the input tax amount, and it was more increased in the decision of correction. According to the above facts, the defendant's decision of correction as above, deducting from the output tax amount for the vicarious performance related to the industrial waste treatment services, which became the tax base of each of the above dispositions, is limited to the amount of tax for the second half of the year 200 to the plaintiff. Thus, each of the above decisions of correction does not exempt the imposition of value-added tax for the second half of the year 200 and the first half of the year.

Furthermore, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in relation to the value-added tax for the second half-year period of 200, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 13-2, Eul evidence 16, and Gap evidence 17, the plaintiff filed a claim for correction to exclude the scheduled amount of value-added tax for the second year of 2000, which was voluntarily reported to the defendant from the tax base of the total cost of the agency services, including the part of the workplace waste treatment services. ② The decision of the National Tax Tribunal at the time when the plaintiff filed the above claim for correction was decided to exclude only the agency services related to the household waste treatment services from the taxable subject of value-added tax. According to the above facts, although it could be known that the plaintiff's request for correction is excluded from the taxable subject of value-added tax and the agency services for the workplace waste treatment services do not fall under the object of exemption from the project cost for the entire workplace waste treatment services due to mistake, etc., and thus, the plaintiff's request for correction and refund of additional tax can not be seen as being corrected by the defendant 197.

(C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be just and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

public official law, order of law,

director of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7007 of Dec. 30, 2003)

Article XIIExemptions

(1) The supply of the following goods or services shall be exempted from value-added taxes:

4. Medical and health services (including veterinary services) as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and blood;

17. Goods or services provided by the State, a local government, or a local government association;

Article 21. Decision and Rectification

(1) The head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over a place of business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall correct the tax base or tax amount payable for the taxable period

/ Value-Added Tax Act

Article 6 Supply of Goods

(5) In selling and buying goods on consignment or through an agent, the consignor or the principal shall be deemed to have supplied or received goods directly: Provided, That the same shall not apply if the consignor or the principal is not identified.

Article 7 Supply of Services

(1) The supply of services shall be either the supply of services or having others use the goods, facilities or rights, pursuant to all contractual and legal grounds.

(2) Where an entrepreneur supplies services directly for his own business, it shall be deemed that he supplies services to him under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

(3) The supply of services to others without compensation or the offer of labor under an employment relationship shall not be considered as the supply of services.

Article XIIExemptions

(1) The supply of the following goods or services shall be exempted from value-added taxes:

4. Medical and health services (including veterinary services) as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and blood;

17. Goods or services supplied by the State, a local government, or a local government association, which are prescribed by Presidential Decree;

Article 13 (Tax Base)

(1) The tax base for value-added taxes on the supply of goods or services shall be the aggregate of values falling under each of the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as "value of supply"): Provided, That value-added taxes

1. Where payments are given in money, the payments;

2. Where payments other than money are given, the current market price of goods or services supplied by the supplier;

3. Where payments for the supply of goods are unjustifiably low or no payments are made, the current market price of goods supplied by the supplier himself/herself;

3-2. Where payments for the services rendered are unjustifiably low, the current market price of such services rendered by the relevant supplier; and

4. Where the business is closed down, the current market price of inventory goods.

Article 21. Decision and Rectification

(1) The head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over a place of business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall determine or correct the tax base of value-added tax or tax amount

1. Where the final tax return is not filed;

2. Where there are any mistakes or omissions in details of the final tax return;

3. Where the list of the total tax invoice by buyer or the total tax invoice by buyer is not submitted in the final tax return, or all or part of the submitted list of the total tax invoice by buyer is not entered or

4. Where the value-added tax is likely to be evaded due to the reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree other than subparagraphs 1 through 3.

(1) The former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1930 of Feb. 9, 2006)

Medical and health services as provided in Article 29 (1) 4 of the Scope of Medical and Health Services Act shall be those as provided in the following subparagraphs (including those provided by a person who has opened a medical institution or a veterinary hospital under the Medical Service Act or the Veterinarians Act):

1. Services provided by a medical doctor, dentist, oriental medical doctor, midwife, or nurse prescribed by the Medical Service Act;

2. Services provided by a beter, bed, bed, bed, or bedas prescribed by the Medical Service Act;

3. Services provided by a clinical path, radiation technician, physical therapy, occupational therapy, dental technician or dental technician as prescribed by the Medical Technicians Act;

4. Medicines preparation services provided by a pharmacist as prescribed by the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act;

5. Services provided by a veterinarian under the Veterinarians Act.

6. Funeral services provided by funeral service providers;

7. Other medical, health and sanitation services as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy.

The term "those prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 12 (1) 17 of the Tax-Free Scope of Tax Exemption for Goods or Services supplied by the State, a local government, or a local government association" in Article 38 means those other than the following goods or services:

1. Services that the postal service organization under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Management of Postal Services visits to and delivers postal items from among value-added postal services under Article 15 (1) of the Postal Service Act;

2. Passenger transport services under the High-Speed Railroad Construction Promotion Act;

Article 48. Calculation of Tax Base

(1) The tax base under Article 13 (1) of the Act shall include payments, commissions, fees, and all other monetary values in a relationship of consideration regardless of the pretext or pretext received from a trader.

(1) The former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 193 on April 3, 2001)

4. Completion of the domestic waste disposal service provided by the business operator who has obtained the license for the domestic waste disposal business under the Wastes Control Act;