2. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's remaining appeal are dismissed, respectively.

3. The total costs of a lawsuit shall be three-minutes, and such two-minutes shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant respectively.

The Defendant’s each imposition of KRW 43,15,562, corporate tax of KRW 160,00 for the year 2001, corporate tax of KRW 15,425,846 for the year 203, and KRW 15,425,846 for the first time value-added tax of KRW 15,425,839 for the year 2004 (which appears to be erroneous in the purport of the claim), and the rejection of refund of KRW 170,091,00 for the first time value-added tax of KRW 170,091,00 for the year 202 (which appears to be erroneous in the statement of claim) (the amount of KRW 171,091,00 for the second time of October 4, 2004), and each disposition of imposition of KRW 65,308,936,539,639,5639,536,5,000) appears to be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The part against the plaintiff in the disposition of imposition of KRW 43,15,562 as of October 1, 2004 against the plaintiff, the part against the plaintiff in the disposition of imposition of KRW 134,934 as of KRW 15,425,846 as of October 1, 2001, and the disposition of refusal of refund of KRW 170,091,00 as of KRW 170 in the disposition of imposition of KRW 134,934 as of KRW 15,429 as of KRW 15,42 as of KRW 200, and KRW 665,308,936 as of January 10, 2005 shall be revoked, respectively.

B. Defendant: The part against the Defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the above revocation is dismissed.

The court's reasoning concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court's decision in addition to the part added or used by the court of first instance as stated in the following Paragraph (2). Thus, this court's reasoning is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A portion used for adding or cutting;

(a)On Part 3, Part 8, "the corporate tax for the year 2003 shall be KRW 160,000,000" shall be added to "(it shall be an additional tax under Article 76, Paragraph 5, of the Corporate Tax Act, on the ground that the evidence has not been received for the service provided)".

(b) Chapter 4, Chapter 20 "O. 1, 2001" shall be applied to "O. 1, 2004".

(c) in Part 5, paragraph 3, the phrase “B 1 to 15 (including each number)” has been added to “B 1 to 15 (including each number), and Category B 36.”

(d) by cutting the “new limit” in Chapter 6, Chapter 19, into “new design”;

(e)Nos. 7 and 16 to 9 shall be followed by:

B. As to the legality of the disposition of imposition of KRW 160,000 for corporate tax of KRW 203

Article 76 (5) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that where a corporation has received goods or services in connection with its business and has failed to receive the evidential documents provided for in any subparagraph of Article 116 (2) of the Corporate Tax Act, such as credit card sales slip and tax invoice under Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act, etc., the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall collect the amount calculated by adding an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the unpaid amount as corporate tax. In this case, where there is no calculated tax amount, the penalty tax shall be collected even if there is no calculated tax amount. In full view of each of the statements in subparagraph 1, subparagraph 6-1 through 4, and subparagraph 36-2, the plaintiff may recognize the facts that there was no calculated tax amount for the plaintiff's corporate tax for the business year (the incidental tax amount).

Therefore, this part of the disposition imposing penalty tax of KRW 160,000, which is the amount equivalent to 2/100 of the amount equivalent to 8,000,000, which the defendant did not receive the above documentary evidence against the plaintiff pursuant to Article 76(5) of the Corporate Tax Act, is legitimate.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that this part of the disposition is unlawful, since the Defendant did not include it in deductible expenses, even though the Plaintiff employed a worker in the year 2003 and paid KRW 47,528,00 as wages to repair the defects of the building in this case.

However, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of tax claims, additional taxes under Article 76(5) of the Corporate Tax Act are administrative sanctions imposed under the conditions as prescribed by the Act in cases where a taxpayer violates the duty to receive documentary evidence without justifiable grounds (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du1918, Nov. 13, 2002, etc.). Corporate tax imposed on income amount and corporate tax should be collected in cases where there is no amount of tax calculated as incidental to the corporate tax base. Whether the inclusion of the above labor cost of KRW 47,528,00 as claimed by the Plaintiff does not affect the legality of the disposition imposing additional tax and the amount of additional tax cannot be affected by any further review. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without reason without merit.

(f)On the 10th page, the following parts shall be added:

In addition, Article 9 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act stipulates that the time of supply of the service shall be determined by the Presidential Decree and the necessary matters concerning the time of supply shall be determined under Article 22 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act. Accordingly, in the case of ordinary supply, when the provision of the service is completed (Article 22 (1)), when the provision of the service is completed, when the provision of the service is supplied under the standard payment, interim payment, long-term installment or under other conditions, or when the service is continuously supplied through an undivided unit (Article 2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act), and when the provision of subparagraphs 1 and 2 is not applicable, when the provision of the service is completed and the price of supply is determined (Article 3 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act) is determined as the time of supply of each service (Article 9 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act).

(g)On the other hand, the following parts shall be added to the pages 10, 19, 20.

In full view of the purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 12-1, No. 17, 19 through 22, and No. 29-1, and No. 29-2, the Plaintiff agreed to be paid in cash immediately after completion of the construction after being awarded a contract for the repair work of the building of this case from November 20, 200. The contents of the repair work of this case can be recognized as the fact that it is an internal facility construction such as the structural reinforcement work for the existing frame of the building of this case and the electric facilities and equipment (water system, pipes, septic tanks, fire fighting, heating and cooling facilities, etc.). Since there is no counter-proof, the repair work of this case constitutes an ordinary service supply for which the price of supply becomes definite at the time of completion of the service provision of this case.

(h) add “A” No. 11-1, 2-2, and “the first instance and the first instance court” to the following:

(i)forth 12, the following parts shall be added:

“The Defendant asserts that part of each of the above tax invoices should not be deducted from the input tax amount because some of the necessary entries under the main sentence of Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act are entered differently from the fact as the date of supply after the lapse of the taxable period. However, the Defendant did not believe that some of the testimony by the witness Kimcheon-woo of the first instance court, which seems consistent with this, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.”

(j) by striking 14 to 20 of the pages.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part concerning the imposition of value-added tax for the first and second years 2001 in excess of the amount stated in the separate sheet for calculation of tax amount in the disposition of this case should be revoked as unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair in conclusion, the part concerning the revocation of the imposition of corporate tax for the year 2003 in the judgment of the court of first instance which partially accepted the defendant's appeal and revoked the disposition of imposition of KRW 160,000 in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

[Attachment Form 1]

Judges Choi Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)