Open Decision Ledger · Tax & international taxation
Whole residential exclusive area for a multi-unit house converted into flats
Supreme Court, Jan. 28, 2021, 2020Du42637 (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: 부가가치세부과처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a house was permitted and approved as a multi-unit house and then converted at will into a multi-family house, does it count as a multi-family house for the bracket provision of Article 51-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and must the housing size under the Housing Act for Article 106(1)(iv) then be judged by the whole residential exclusive area?
Holding
No and yes. The bracket provision of Article 51-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree reaches, absent special circumstances, only a building that lawfully meets the requirements of a multi-family house and is entered on the official record as such; a house permitted and approved as a multi-unit house and then converted at will, by installing cooking facilities in each room without approval for a change of use, is not a multi-family house. Its size must therefore be judged by the whole residential exclusive area, which here plainly exceeded 85 square metres, so it was not national housing under Article 106(1)(iv) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and the value-added tax assessment was lawful.
Points at issue, verbatim
‘다중주택’으로 건축허가 및 사용승인을 받은 후 임의로 사실상 ‘다가구주택’ 용도로 개조한 경우, 조세특례제한법 시행령 제106조 제4항 제1호, 제51조의2 제3항 괄호 부분의 ‘다가구주택’에 해당하는지 여부(소극) 및 이 경우 조세특례제한법 제106조 제1항 제4호의 적용과 관련하여 주택법에 따른 국민주택 규모 이하인지는 전체 주거전용면적을 기준으로 판단해야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, where a building that was granted a building permit and approval of use as a "multi-house housing" is subsequently altered without authorization so as to in fact be used as a "multi-family house," it falls within the "multi-family house" in the parenthetical part of Article 106 (4), subparagraph 1 and Article 51-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (negative), and, in that case, whether, for the purpose of applying Article 106 (1), subparagraph 4 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, whether it is not larger than the size of a national housing as provided in the Housing Act must be determined on the basis of the total exclusive residential area (affirmative)
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
이 사건 괄호 규정의 ‘다가구주택’은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 관련 법령에 따른 ‘다가구주택’의 요건을 적법하게 충족하여 공부상 ‘다가구주택’으로 등재된 건축물만 해당한다고 봄이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
In the absence of special circumstances, the "multi-family house" in the parenthetical provision at issue may reasonably be regarded as referring only to a building that lawfully satisfies the requirements for a "multi-family house" under the relevant statutes and regulations and is registered as a "multi-family house" in the official register.
Factors
- 주택법에 따른 단독주택이 조세특례제한법 제106조 제1항 제4호에서 부가가치세 면제대상으로 정한 ‘국민주택’에 해당하기 위한 요건인 ‘주택법에 따른 국민주택 규모 이하’인지 판단하는 기준
- ‘다중주택’으로 건축허가 및 사용승인을 받은 후 임의로 사실상 ‘다가구주택’ 용도로 개조한 경우, 조세특례제한법 시행령 제106조 제4항 제1호, 제51조의2 제3항 괄호 부분의 ‘다가구주택’에 해당하는지 여부(소극)
- 이 경우 조세특례제한법 제106조 제1항 제4호의 적용과 관련하여 주택법에 따른 국민주택 규모 이하인지는 전체 주거전용면적을 기준으로 판단해야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
• The criteria for determining whether a detached house under the Housing Act meets the requirement of being "not larger than the size of a national housing as provided in the Housing Act" in order to fall within the "national housing" exempted from value-added tax under Article 106 (1), subparagraph 4 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act
• Whether, where a building that was granted a building permit and approval of use as a "multi-house housing" is subsequently altered without authorization so as to in fact be used as a "multi-family house," it falls within the "multi-family house" in the parenthetical part of Article 106 (4), subparagraph 1 and Article 51-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (negative)
• In that case, whether, for the purpose of applying Article 106 (1), subparagraph 4 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, whether it is not larger than the size of a national housing as provided in the Housing Act must be determined on the basis of the total exclusive residential area (affirmative)
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
이와 달리 ‘다중주택’으로 건축허가 및 사용승인을 받은 다음 용도변경의 허가 없이 각 실별로 취사시설을 설치함으로써 사실상 ‘다가구주택’의 용도로 개조한 경우에는 이 사건 괄호 규정의 ‘다가구주택’에 해당한다고 볼 수 없으므로
Unofficial English translation
By contrast, where a building that was granted a building permit and approval of use as a "multi-house housing" is thereafter altered, without obtaining permission for a change of use, by installing cooking facilities in each room so as to in fact be used as a "multi-family house," it cannot be regarded as falling within the "multi-family house" in the parenthetical provision at issue, and therefore
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What special circumstances, if any, could bring a building that is not entered on the official record as a multi-family house within the bracket provision?
An amendment to Article 51-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree, to Annex 1 of the Building Act Enforcement Decree, or to the national housing size limit in Article 2(vi) of the Housing Act would call for a fresh reading of this entry. A later decision applying the special circumstances clause would show how wide the bracket provision reaches.
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 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary treats the ruling as setting a new standard (새 기준 제시), while the independent cannot confirm the precedent relation (확인 불가); whether the ruling is new depends on how far it departs from earlier practice on registration-based classification.
상고이유에서 들고 있는 대법원 판례들은 사안이 달라 이 사건에 원용하기에 적절하지 않다.Raw 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 Daejeon High Court, in its judgment of 12 June 2020 (2019Nu12300), held that the plaintiff had not substantially ceased its housing construction and sale business when it supplied the house, so it remained a business under the Value-Added Tax Act. It further held that the house was not national housing within Article 106(1)(iv) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, so the assessment of KRW 75,389,590 for the 2016 second period, made on 5 December 2017, was lawful. It rejected the plaintiff's claim that the deemed-supply rule in Article 10(6) and (1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act barred the assessment.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in any of those holdings. It held that the court below had not misread the law on whether the plaintiff was a taxable business or on Article 10(6) and (1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act, and that the interpretation of national housing size rested on the reasoning it itself gave, so the assessment stood. The Supreme Court decisions the plaintiff raised were, it said, distinguishable, and it dismissed the appeal in a unanimous judgment.
Distinguishing conditions
- A building that lawfully meets the requirements of a multi-family house and is entered on the official record as such, where the per-unit exclusive area is the measure.
- A multi-unit house whose whole residential exclusive area does not exceed 85 square metres, since the decision directs the whole-area test for such a house and Article 2(vi) of the Housing Act sets 85 square metres as the ceiling.
- A conversion made with approval for a change of use, since the decision relied on conversion without such approval.
Record verification notes
Set the building permit and the use approval against the official use registration, and check whether cooking facilities were installed room by room after approval without a change of use. Then compare the twenty units with the nineteen-household limit, the parking standard with that for multi-family houses, and the whole residential exclusive area with the 85 square metre ceiling. Confirm which version of Annex 1 to the Building Act Enforcement Decree applied on the permit date, since the decision applied the version in force before the amendment of 17 May 2016.
From the official text
Points at issue
주택법에 따른 단독주택이 조세특례제한법 제106조 제1항 제4호에서 부가가치세 면제대상으로 정한 ‘국민주택’에 해당하기 위한 요건인 ‘주택법에 따른 국민주택 규모 이하’인지 판단하는 기준 / ‘다중주택’으로 건축허가 및 사용승인을 받은 후 임의로 사실상 ‘다가구주택’ 용도로 개조한 경우, 조세특례제한법 시행령 제106조 제4항 제1호, 제51조의2 제3항 괄호 부분의 ‘다가구주택’에 해당하는지 여부(소극) 및 이 경우 조세특례제한법 제106조 제1항 제4호의 적용과 관련하여 주택법에 따른 국민주택 규모 이하인지는 전체 주거전용면적을 기준으로 판단해야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
The criteria for determining whether a detached house under the Housing Act meets the requirement of being "not larger than the size of a national housing as provided in the Housing Act" in order to fall within the "national housing" exempted from value-added tax under Article 106 (1), subparagraph 4 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act / Whether, where a building that was granted a building permit and approval of use as a "multi-house housing" is subsequently altered without authorization so as to in fact be used as a "multi-family house," it falls within the "multi-family house" in the parenthetical part of Article 106 (4), subparagraph 1 and Article 51-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (negative), and, in that case, whether, for the purpose of applying Article 106 (1), subparagraph 4 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, whether it is not larger than the size of a national housing as provided in the Housing Act must be determined on the basis of the total exclusive residential area (affirmative)
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
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Provisions referred to
조세특례제한법 제106조 제1항 제4호, 조세특례제한법 시행령 제51조의2 제3항, 제106조 제4항 제1호, 조세특례제한법 시행규칙 제20조, 주택법 제2조 제6호, 구 건축법 시행령(2016. 5. 17. 대통령령 제27175호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조의5 [별표 1] 제1호 (나)목, (다)목
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