부가가치세부과처분취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the following contents among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420
(1) The construction period and "construction period" in Chapter 18 shall be changed to "construction period".
(2) The 3rd page "2,099,00,000 won" shall be deemed to be "2,199,00,000 won".
(3) On the 8th page, the payment on the 7th page shall be made “assumed”.
(4) The 6th parallel "2,099,000,000 won" shall be deemed to be "2,199,00,000 won".
5. Part 7 of Part 9 " "," is added as follows: "(However, 100,000,000 won paid to SPF on September 27, 201, out of the construction price stated in attached Form 2, was paid separately from the details of damage assessment)."
(6) Grade 9 "358,747,123 won" shall be deemed "3,587,470,123 won".
7. On the 10th page "(20,198,230 won paid to St. S. on January 19, 2012, and 2,176,790 won paid to Hyundai Environmental Management on February 1, 2012, among the construction price stated in attached Table 3, were paid separately from the details of damage assessment)" shall be added.
(8) The 5th page “not only” shall be changed to “not only”.
9. On the following grounds of Chapter 10, the defendant argues that "the construction price of this case shall be the contract price specified in the contract of this case, but the defendant reserves conditional rights to change the construction price ex post to the insurance company's amount of compensation on condition that the adjusted amount would be lower than the contract price under the contract of this case. However, as seen earlier, the construction price shall be determined not only in cases where the adjusted amount is lower than the contract price under the contract of this case but also in cases where the adjusted amount was higher than the contract price under the contract of this case. Thus, the above argument is without merit without further review.