2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff OOO and the plaintiff 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

"A. On March 11, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a management-type land trust agreement and business agreement with the non-party BB Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "non-party BB Construction Co., Ltd.") for the implementation of the second new construction and sale project of the OCC 2, which is the truster, and agreed that the non-party company shall be entitled to receive the claim for the refund of value-added tax arising in relation to the above project (hereinafter referred to as "the claim transfer agreement of this case") from the non-party company, and its main contents are as follows; the period ofO:

(O) Details of acquisition-based claims: A tax amount to be refunded by a transferor according to a final and conclusive value-added tax return that falls within the above period;

(O) The transferor of claims shall perform the duty of reporting value added tax faithfully in accordance with Acts and subordinate statutes.

O The transferor of claims does not perform any act contrary to this Agreement. In particular, it is confirmed that the dual transfer of the value-added tax refund reduces the amount of the value-added tax refund by receiving special refund of value-added tax or early refund, etc., or that the act causing the dispute is a tort.

B. On April 15, 2009, the Defendant received a notice of assignment of claims from the non-party company to the Plaintiff that the non-party company transferred to the Plaintiff all of the claim for value-added refund accrued during the period from the date of registration of trust (009.03 to the date of termination of trust (09.01) to the date of termination of trust.

C. On March 24, 2010, the Defendant issued a decision to correct the filing of the final return of value-added tax refund in 2008, the amount of OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, and the amount of OOOOOOOO in 2009, and paid each of the above refunds to the non-party company on March 25, 2010 on the following day upon receipt of the final return of value-added tax refund on February 11, 2010 upon receipt of the non-party company’s final return of value-added tax refund on February 11, 2010, and around April 201, 201, the non-party company paid value-added tax refundOOOO to the non-party company on May 7, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

If it is possible to recognize the identity of claims with respect to the assignment of claims by distinguishing them from those of other claims in terms of social norms, such claims shall be deemed specified. Even if the amount of claims for the transfer of claims is not determined at the time of the transfer of claims, if the standard is established to determine the period during which the obligations are due, such transfer of claims shall be deemed valid (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da21624, Jul. 25, 1997).

In addition, in the case of the refund of value-added tax, where the input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount due to the nature of the transfer tax that differs from the taxpayer in the case of the refund of value-added tax, the refund is the so-called tax amount by having the structure similar to the establishment and confirmation of the tax claim as the so-called tax amount, which is caused by the taxpayer's declaration or the decision of the tax office.

Of the claim for the refund of value-added tax of the non-party company, the amount of each claim for correction filed on March 24, 2010, which is the date of the defendant's decision of correction, and the amount of each claim for correction filed on March 24, 2010, which is the date of the defendant's decision of correction, the amount of the final return filed on February 2009, and the amount of each preliminary return filed on April 2010, respectively, around April 2010, and each of the above claims for the refund of value-added tax are included in the subject of the assignment of claims based on the contract. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the sum of each claim for the refund of value-added tax and the damages incurred therefrom, unless there are special circumstances.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(1) The Defendant asserts that the claim for the refund of value-added tax, which is the object of the transfer of claim, is different from the taxable period and the refund period, and that the transfer of claim in this case is not specified as the specific period or amount is not specified as in the request form for the transfer of national tax refund, and thus the transfer of claim in this case is also null and void. However, the purpose of the contract in this case is to specify the scope of the claim for the refund of value-added tax to be transferred only as the time of occurrence, regardless of the time of the taxable period, the entire claim for the refund of value-added tax, which is the object of the transfer, from March

(2) Although the non-party company, the transferor of the claim, should not receive the above amount of value-added tax refund from the defendant due to the conclusion of the contract, the above transfer of the claim in this case violates the above amount of value-added tax refund. Thus, the above transfer of the claim is null and void. The plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit in this case against the defendant without prior to the lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of value-added tax refund. However, the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit in this case against the non-party company is contrary to the principle of good faith. However, unless there is no separate expression of intent for rescission, the contract cannot be deemed null and void only on the ground of the non-performance of obligation, and it is difficult to view that the plaintiff'

(3) The Defendant asserts to the effect that the notice of the transfer of claims by Nonparty Company is not a written request for the transfer of national tax refund under Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and that the request for the transfer of national tax refund, etc. shall be made according to the prescribed form of the request for the transfer of national tax refund. However, this form is merely an internal form of administrative agency for the purpose of promoting administrative convenience. Thus, the above provision is a procedural provision having the nature of administrative rules, and it does not have the effect of the request for transfer even if the taxpayer did not follow the prescribed form (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu674, Sept. 22, 1987). Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, as the defendant seeks from August 13, 2010, the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act until August 27, 2013, which is the date of this decision, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.