Open Decision Ledger · Tax & international taxation
Public charges collected for tenants as outside the VAT tax base
Supreme Court, Feb. 28, 2019, 2018Du57063 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 부가가치세경정거부처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Do electricity and other public charges fall within the value-added tax base where the supplier of a service merely collects them, separate from the consideration for that service, and forwards the payment on as an accommodation for the party who bears them?
Holding
They do not. Whether public charges such as electricity and gas fees are in the tax base turns on whether they stand in a consideration relationship with the supply of goods or services; where the supplier only collects them for the counterparty, separate from the price, and forwards the payment as an accommodation, they are not in that relationship. The Supreme Court accordingly held that the electricity fees the plaintiff collected from the tenants of the managed building must be excluded from the value-added tax base for each relevant tax period.
Points at issue, verbatim
건물의 관리업무를 수행하는 갑이 위 건물의 입주자들을 위하여 그들이 부담하는 전기요금을 관리용역에 따른 대가와 구분하여 편의상 함께 수령하여 납부를 대행한 것으로 봄이 타당하므로, 위 전기요금은 갑의 관리용역의 공급과 대가관계에 있다고 볼 수 없어 각 부가가치세의 과세표준에서 제외되어야 한다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
since A, who performs the management work of the building, may reasonably be regarded as having received, for convenience and as an agent for payment, the electricity charges borne by the occupants of the building on their behalf and separately from the consideration for the management services, the said electricity charges cannot be regarded as being in a consideration relationship with the supply of A's management services and must therefore be excluded from each value-added tax tax base
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
이러한 사실관계를 앞서 본 법리에 비추어 살펴보면
Unofficial English translation
Examining these facts in light of the legal principle stated above,
Factors
- 을 회사가 갑이 대납한 건물의 전기요금을 갑에게 지급하기로 하였고
- 전기요금을 일반 관리비 등과는 별도의 항목으로 구분하여 관리비와 함께 수납하여 대납한 후
- 그들이 부담하는 전기요금을 관리용역에 따른 대가와 구분하여 편의상 함께 수령하여 납부를 대행한 것으로
- 위 전기요금은 갑의 관리용역의 공급과 대가관계에 있다고 볼 수 없어
Unofficial English translation
• B Co. agreed to pay A the electricity charges of the building that A had paid on its behalf, and
• after collecting the electricity charges together with the management fees, itemized separately from ordinary management fees and other items, and paying them on their behalf,
• received together, for convenience and as an agent for payment, the electricity charges borne by them separately from the consideration for the management services,
• the said electricity charges cannot be regarded as being in a consideration relationship with the supply of A's management services, and
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2007. 9. 6. 선고 2007두9778 판결(공2007하, 1577)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2007Du9778 decided September 6, 2007 (Gong 2007 Ha, 1577)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2007. 9. 6. 선고 2007두9778 판결(공2007하, 1577)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the tax office also refused the amendment request because the tax invoices were issued by a closed-down business after the time of supply, what findings must the remand court make before the excluded electricity fees can be credited as input tax?
The Seoul High Court's retrial judgment, which must address both the tax base and the input tax ground the tax office relied on, will show how the two questions are handled together. Any amendment to Article 29(1) and (3)(i) of the Value-Added Tax Act or Article 48(1) of its Enforcement Decree would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the tax office also refused the amendment request because the tax invoices were issued by a closed-down business after the time of supply, what findings must the remand court make before the excluded electricity fees can be credited as input tax?” vs Independent “Would collecting an additional fee with the electricity charges change the VAT treatment of the charges or only of the fee?”
The primary asks what the remand court must find about closed-business invoices and input tax credit, while the independent asks whether an extra fee collected with the charges changes their VAT treatment.
건물의 관리업무를 수행하는 갑이 위 건물의 입주자들을 위하여 그들이 부담하는 전기요금을 관리용역에 따른 대가와 구분하여 편의상 함께 수령하여 납부를 대행한 것으로 봄이 타당하므로, 위 전기요금은 갑의 관리용역의 공급과 대가관계에 있다고 볼 수 없어 각 부가가치세의 과세표준에서 제외되어야 한다고 한 사례Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 7 September 2018 (2017Nu89751), held that the plaintiff's business of paying the electricity fees on to the Korea Electric Power Corporation stood in a consideration relationship with the monthly management fee of KRW 19 million, excluding value-added tax, that the plaintiff was to receive from CJ under the service contract, so that none of the KRW 231,903,224 in electricity fees could be excluded from the tax base of each of the disputed value-added taxes.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that this misapprehended the law on the value-added tax base and affected the judgment. Public charges are in the tax base only if they are in a consideration relationship with the supply, and on the facts found the electricity fees were collected separately from the consideration for the management service and merely forwarded for the tenants, with no cost of any kind included in the amounts collected. It reversed the judgment below and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court for retrial, on the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- Electricity fees collected together with a handling charge or any other cost, since the Court relied on the finding that no cost of any kind apart from value-added tax was included in what the plaintiff collected.
- A situation in which the service provider is itself the party to the electricity supply contract, rather than paying on behalf of the contract holder, here CJ, the builder of the building whose management contract was with the plaintiff.
- A dispute about whether tax invoices issued by a closed-down business and issued after the time of supply allow the payment to be recognised as input tax, since the tax office refused the amendment request on that separate ground and the decision does not decide it.
Record verification notes
Set out the contract terms that separate the charge for the service from the public charges, and check whether the collected amounts include any commission or cost, because the facts found included actual consumption measured by individual shop meters and area-based apportionment of the common parts. Then see whether the electricity supply contract is held by CJ rather than by the plaintiff, since the forwarding was made in the name of that company, which had been closed down as of 1 July 2009 by an ex officio administrative disposition of 4 September 2009. Whether the tax invoices support input tax credit was not resolved here.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 전기·가스요금 등 공공요금이 부가가치세의 과세표준에 포함되는지 판단하는 기준 및 단순히 재화 또는 용역의 공급자가 거래상대방을 위하여 그가 부담하는 공공요금을 재화 또는 용역공급에 따른 대가와 구분하여 편의상 함께 수령하여 납부를 대행한 것에 불과한 경우, 공공요금이 재화 또는 용역의 공급과 대가관계에 있다고 볼 수 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 건물관리업자인 갑과 을 주식회사가 건물관리용역계약을 체결하면서 을 회사가 갑이 대납한 건물의 전기요금을 갑에게 지급하기로 하였고, 이에 따라 갑이 위 건물의 입주자들로부터 전기요금을 일반 관리비 등과는 별도의 항목으로 구분하여 관리비와 함께 수납하여 대납한 후 해당 과세기간에 건물의 입주자들로부터 수납한 관리비(전기요금 포함)에 대하여 입주자들에게 세금계산서를 발급·교부하고, 이를 토대로 부가가치세를 신고·납부하였는데, 그 후 갑이 대납한 전기요금에 대한 부가가치세를 매입세액으로 인정하여 부가가치세 과세표준에서 공제해 달라는 내용의 부가가치세 경정청구를 하였으나 과세관청이 이를 거부한 사안에서, 건물의 관리업무를 수행하는 갑이 위 건물의 입주자들을 위하여 그들이 부담하는 전기요금을 관리용역에 따른 대가와 구분하여 편의상 함께 수령하여 납부를 대행한 것으로 봄이 타당하므로, 위 전기요금은 갑의 관리용역의 공급과 대가관계에 있다고 볼 수 없어 각 부가가치세의 과세표준에서 제외되어야 한다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The criteria for determining whether public utility charges such as electricity and gas charges are included in the tax base of value-added tax, and whether public utility charges may be regarded as being in a consideration relationship with the supply of goods or services where the supplier of goods or services merely received, for convenience and separately from the consideration for the supply of goods or services, the public utility charges borne by the counterparty to the transaction on the latter's behalf and remitted them as an agent for payment (negative) [2] In a case where A, a building management operator, and B Co., Ltd. entered into a building management services agreement under which B Co. agreed to pay A the electricity charges of the building that A had paid on its behalf, and accordingly A collected the electricity charges from the occupants of the building together with the management fees, itemized separately from ordinary management fees and other items, paid them on their behalf, and then issued and delivered tax invoices to the occupants for the management fees (including electricity charges) collected from the occupants of the building during the relevant taxable period and filed and paid value-added tax on that basis, but where A subsequently filed a claim for the revision of value-added tax requesting that the value-added tax on the electricity charges paid by A on others' behalf be recognized as input tax and deducted from the value-added tax tax base, and the tax authority refused the claim, the court holding that since A, who performs the management work of the building, may reasonably be regarded as having received, for convenience and as an agent for payment, the electricity charges borne by the occupants of the building on their behalf and separately from the consideration for the management services, the said electricity charges cannot be regarded as being in a consideration relationship with the supply of A's management services and must therefore be excluded from each value-added tax tax base
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 부가가치세법(2013. 6. 7. 법률 제11873호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제13조 제1항 제1호(현행 제29조 제1항, 제3항 제1호 참조), 구 부가가치세법 시행령(2013. 6. 28. 대통령령 제24638호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제48조 제1항(현행 부가가치세법 제29조 제3항 참조) [2] 구 부가가치세법(2013. 6. 7. 법률 제11873호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제13조 제1항 제1호(현행 제29조 제1항, 제3항 제1호 참조), 구 부가가치세법 시행령(2013. 6. 28. 대통령령 제24638호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제48조 제1항(현행 부가가치세법 제29조 제3항 참조)
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger