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

The following facts may be recognized by taking into account the absence of dispute between the parties, and the whole purport of each entry and pleading in Gap evidence 1 through 17, and Eul evidence 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply):

A. On April 25, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the non-party CC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party CC Co., Ltd.") for construction works of 10 Dong-dong and subsidiary facilities (hereinafter referred to as the "the apartment of this case").

B. On March 30, 2010, the Plaintiff prepared a tax invoice for KRW 000, which is a part of the construction price for the said new construction works, and issued it to the non-party company, and paid the value-added tax accordingly to the Defendant.

C. Thereafter, on April 26, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an attachment and assignment order with respect to the claim for refund of value-added tax of KRW 000 with respect to the non-party company's claim for refund (hereinafter "the claim for refund of this case") against the Republic of Korea under the Seoul Central District Court No. 2010, Seoul Central District Court No. 2013859, which was issued and issued by the non-party company against the Plaintiff on April 26, 2006, and the order was served on the Defendant, the debtor on April 28, 2010, who is the debtor on April 28, 2010.

D. Meanwhile, on June 11, 2010, the Plaintiff, the Nonparty Company, and the Korea Asset Trust Company concluded a disposal trust agreement with respect to 661 households, such as unsold portion in lots, and the Nonparty Company, the truster, the Korea Asset Trust Company, and the Plaintiff as the first beneficiary (hereinafter “instant trust”), and as to the above 661 household apartments (hereinafter “instant trust real estate”), the Ulsan District Court’s registration office of the Busan District Court was issued as of June 16, 2010, with respect to the above 661 household apartments (hereinafter “instant trust real estate”).

E. The non-party company initially reported each input tax amount to be refunded to the non-party company as KRW 00 (hereinafter referred to as "tax amount to be refunded"), and on the premise that the trust of this case constitutes "supply of goods, which are subject to value-added tax, because the non-party company supplied the trust real estate to the plaintiff who is the first beneficiary," and issued a tax invoice with the plaintiff as the recipient on August 11, 2010, and made a revised return for the first period of value-added tax return for the non-party company on August 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the revised return in this case"). The defendant calculated the defective portion of the tax base and the defective portion of the revised return, and notified the non-party company of the revised return (hereinafter referred to as "the additional tax") on November 1, 2010."

G. On February 10, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) filed a request for correction pursuant to Article 45-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim for refund of the instant refund was wholly received; and (b) the Plaintiff’s claim for refund of the instant refund is likely to be extinguished due to the Nonparty Company’s unfair revised declaration and the instant illegal disposition based thereon; and (c) the third party having a legal interest in claiming for correction, or the Plaintiff’s creditor to preserve the claim for construction cost against the Plaintiff’s sub-committee company, on behalf of Nonparty Company, for the purpose of cancelling the instant disposition and claiming for refund of KRW 00,000,000 for the initial refundable tax amount, but the Defendant did not constitute “a person who submitted the tax base, the applicant for filing a request for correction, by the statutory due date of return, by June 8, 2011.”

H. On July 5, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant refusal disposition, filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on July 5, 201, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on December 22, 201, on the ground that the Plaintiff was not a legitimate claimant for filing a request for correction of the instant case.

"I. After the plaintiff, the trust of this case is nothing more than securing all claims of the non-party company, the truster, and since the ownership or right to dispose of the movable property of this case cannot be deemed to have been transferred to the plaintiff, the trust of this case cannot be deemed to be "supply of goods" as object of value added tax, the plaintiff filed a revised return of this case on the premise that the non-party company supplied the real property of this case to the plaintiff, and the defendant filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of this case on the basis of the revised return of this case on the ground that the defects are significant and obvious and invalid or illegal, and the Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap21300 filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of this case on the basis of the revised return of this case, but the above court, the creditor of the non-party company or the creditor of the refund claim of this case on the non-party company, as the whole, has a substantial and indirect interest in the disposition of this case, and does not have a direct and specific interest in this case, and it cannot be viewed as the plaintiff's claim for correction of this case.

A. Main assertion

The trust of this case is merely to secure all the claims, such as the construction cost claim, which the Plaintiff, the first beneficiary, against the non-party company, and it cannot be deemed that ownership or right to dispose of the trust property of this case, transferred to the Plaintiff. Thus, the non-party company did not constitute the "supply of goods subject to value-added tax". However, the non-party company filed a revised return of this case with the Plaintiff on the ground that there was a supply of real estate in this case to the Plaintiff for the purpose of evading large debts against the Plaintiff or covering money, and the Defendant made the disposition of this case on the basis of the revised return of this case on the ground that its defect is significant and obvious, and thus, the claim for refund of this case still remains valid, and the Defendant, the third obligor, the entire obligee, is obliged to pay 00 won, the initial refund amount, and delay damages to the Plaintiff

B. Preliminary assertion

The Plaintiff’s claim attachment and assignment order on the refund claim of this case was finalized around April 28, 2010, and on July 26, 2010, the non-party company’s claim for the refund of value-added tax was finalized at KRW 000 according to the non-party company’s final return on July 26, 2010, and the non-party company’s claim for the refund of value-added tax established as above was already transferred to the Plaintiff according to the assignment order of this case finalized earlier, and it cannot be deemed that the non-party company had an impact on the refund claim of value-added tax already transferred to the Plaintiff or that the refund claim is retroactively extinguished. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the refund of value-added tax and its delay damages already determined as above.

3. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff, on April 26, 2010, filed a lawsuit in accordance with the instant assignment order.

On March 30, 2010, the non-party company received all the claim for refund of value-added tax against the defendant in the future with respect to the construction price paid by the company to the plaintiff on March 30, 2010, and the non-party company reported the tax amount to 000 won at the time of establishing the first quarter value-added tax in 2010 and reported the revised return of this case on August 11, 2010, and the disposition of this case by the defendant based on the revised return of this case was made after the revised report of this case, the initial report was added to and terminated in the revised report of this case, and accordingly, there was no claim for refund of value-added tax against the defendant of the non-party company to which

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s revised tax return or this case’s disposition, as the Plaintiff’s primary assertion, is so serious that it still remains valid, and accordingly, whether the claim for refund of the refund of this case continues to exist. It should be reasonably determined by considering the purpose and meaning of the laws and regulations that serve as the basis for filing the return, and the legal remedy for the act of filing the defective tax return, as well as the specific circumstances leading to the filing of the return, respectively, at the same time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da81257, Apr. 23, 2009). The evidence presented in the above paragraph 1 is that the Plaintiff’s revised tax return or this case’s revised tax invoice cannot be considered as having been considered as being valid, and that the Plaintiff’s revised tax invoice or this case’s revised tax invoice or the first instance court’s revised tax invoice or the first instance court’s revised tax invoice or the first instance court’s revised tax invoice or the first instance court’s revised tax invoice, and that the Defendant did not intervene or participated in the process.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.