임대차계약 종료 후 임차인의 계속 점유와 부가가치세에서의 용역의 ‘공급’ ―대법원 2003.11.28. 선고 2002두8534 판결- (Is There “Supply of Service” after Termination of Lease Agreement under Korean VAT Law? ―A Review on a 2003 Korean Supreme Court Decision―)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국세법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 조세법연구 / 18권 / 1호 / 238 ~ 276페이지
· 저자명 : 윤지현

초록

임대차 계약이 종료된 후에도 임차인이 임대차 목적물을 계속 점유하는 경우, 임료 상당 사용이익에 해당하는 금액의 지급 의무를 지는 임차인에게 임대인이 계속하여 역무(役務)를 유상으로 제공하고 있는 것인가, 즉 임대차 ‘용역의 공급’이 존재하는가 하는 점이 부가가치세법상 문제된다. 이에 대하여 대상 판결은 긍정적으로 판단하면서 임대인의 임대용역에 대한 부가가치세 납세의무의 존재를 인정하였는데, 이는 1995년 이래 일관된 대법원의 입장이기도 하지만, 대법원은 이러한 법리를 제시하면서 그에 관한 별다른 법적, 이론적 근거를 제시하지는 않고 있다.
이 글에서는 부가가치세법상 ‘공급’ 개념에 관한 문리 해석, 부가가치세의 전반적 체계 내에서 ‘공급’이라는 개념이 갖는 의미, 그리고 부가가치세를 실시하고 있는 유럽과 오스트레일리아의 사례 등을 통하여, 임대차 계약 종료 후의 이러한 상태가 용역의 공급에 해당할 수 있는지 여부에 관하여 생각하여 보고, 또 각각의 결론이 현실적으로는 어떠한 문제를 가져올 것인지를 아울러 점검함으로써, 대상 판결에서 제시된 결론의 당부를 검토하여 본다.

영어초록

For Value-Added Tax (VAT) purposes, if a lessor lends its property to another person, i.e. a lessee, so that the latter may make use of such property, the former is generally viewed as making a taxable “supply of service." However, it is not clear whether the aforementioned “supply of service“ continues to exist even after the termination of the relevant lease agreement. The issue is not mentioned even in the comprehensive, recently recast Directive of the European Union, which is considered by many as a sort of model VAT act. The Australian controversy with respect to the “involuntary supply" also reflects the fact that there seems to be no simple and uniform answer to the issue.
The Korean Supreme Court rendered a decision on November 28, 2003, on this obscure issue, opining that there is still taxable supply of service if the two following tests are met：(ⅰ) if the lessee continues its use of the property (the “use test")；and,(ⅱ) if the lessor, at the moment of the termination of the lease agreement, has the right to deduct the amount that would have been paid if the lease agreement were still in force, from the deposit that the lessor had received from the lessee at the beginning of the lease term, which deposit is quite common and typical in Korean practice.
This Article discusses whether this holding is in consistence of the wording of the Korean VAT Act, and the basic principles of the VAT that are common to now many countries which have adopted the tax. In such discussion, this Article, in particular, attempts to identify the basic principles and features of the VAT that this author believes must be taken into consideration when lawyers face such a VAT issue as the one discussed here, which seems to be often ignored by the court and tax authorities alike. Having identified as such basic factors, the very wording of the relevant law, the nature of the tax as an general consumption tax, the consideration of the VAT-invoice system, etc., and taking all these factors into account, this Article concludes that there should be no taxable supply after the termination of a lease agreement.

참고자료

· 없음