명의신탁 토지 소유자와의 건축공사계약을 선의의 거래로 볼 수 있는지 여부[국승]
Suwon District Court 2007Guhap6732 ( May 14, 2008)
National High Court Decision 2006Du3005 (207.05)
Whether a building agreement with the owner of a title trust can be deemed a bona fide transaction.
In light of the overall form of transaction, such as the details of the conclusion of a contract for construction work and the payment of sale price, the individual owner only has ownership of the land under title trust, and the actual owner could have easily known that there was a separate contract owner.
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
Article 76 of the Value-Added Tax Act
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant revoked each disposition of the value-added tax (additional tax) imposed on the plaintiff on May 1, 2006 39,630,840 won (additional tax) for the plaintiff on January 1, 2003, 19,133,680 won for February 1, 2003, 6,375,140 won for January 6, 2004, 2004, and 600,147,610 won for corporate tax (additional tax) for two years 204 (3,052,030 won for two years 38,504,980 won for 2003, 211,642,630 won for 204 business year).
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows. On September 15, 2003 and May 20, 2004, the plaintiff entered into an agreement to modify the construction period or contract for construction work on the ground of excavation of cultural properties and extension of construction period due to rain, etc. between the above ○○ Housing, etc. on the ground that ○○○ Construction was jointly and severally and severally guaranteed by ○○ Construction, etc. (the trade name was changed to ○○○ Construction, Ltd.). The third 7th ○○ Construction and the plaintiff did not present an agreement on the construction of ○○○ Construction, etc. on behalf of ○○ Construction and the owner of the building on March 11, 202 on behalf of ○○ Construction and the owner of the building on behalf of ○○ Construction and the owner of the building on behalf of ○○ Construction and the owner of the building on behalf of ○○ Construction and the owner of the building on behalf of ○○ Construction and the owner of the building on behalf of ○○ Construction.
A. The plaintiff's assertion
Since the plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the actual supply of the apartment of this case was ○○ Construction in 203 and 2004 by the time the return and payment of the value-added tax and the corporate tax in 2004, there is a justifiable reason as to the failure of the plaintiff to pay the value-added tax and the corporate tax in this case. Therefore, each of
B. Determination
As seen earlier, the actual owner of the apartment of this case was aware of the fact that the actual owner of the apartment of this case was an owner of ○○ Construction, even though he was aware of the construction contract with ○○ Housing, etc., and even if he did not do so, if he was aware of the fact that the actual owner was not ○○ Construction and ○○ Housing, etc., the actual owner could easily be aware that he was not ○○ Construction and ○○ Housing. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the actual owner of the apartment of this case was ○ Construction, and the Plaintiff was not responsible for the
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.