(B) not only consented to the establishment of a right to collateral security against machinery but also thereafter (B)

on the premise that the ownership of the above machinery belongs to the Corporation, the Corporation shall exercise the right of retention on the above machinery.

In full view of all the facts, the instant machinery belongs to subparagraph (B) at least

Notarial Deed is drawn up, and the unpaid price is determined on November 8, 2013, the machinery of this case

Since it is reasonable to deem that the supply became final and conclusive, it is deemed that November 8, 2013, as of the time of supply for the instant machinery.

that is right and wrong, and that the above machinery has not been completed until then, and that the machinery has not been inspected by (B).

It does not mean that it did not vary with the fact that it was.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

The second instance decision

National Rotations

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

The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 172,949,090 on August 4, 2015 and global income tax of KRW 105,154,630 on August 4, 2015 by the former Defendant against the Plaintiff on August 4, 2015 shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiff is a personal entrepreneur engaged in the waterproof sets manufacturing business with the trade name of “(A)” and: (1) as between January 30, 2013, the Plaintiff is to manufacture and install waterproof sets machinery (hereinafter “instant machinery”) with Company B (hereinafter “B”) on January 30, 2013; (2) as between the Plaintiff and the date of the contract, the Plaintiff shall be paid the Plaintiff a down payment of KRW 118,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) and the mid payment of KRW 590,000,000 on April 30, 2013, the remainder payment of KRW 47,00,000 on April 30, 2013, the remainder payment of KRW 200,000 on June 30, 2013, the Plaintiff shall be made at the time of the completion of construction and the late payment of KRW 30,000 on June 30, 200.

B. Under the above contract, the Plaintiff suspended the manufacture of the instant machinery on or around September 2013 due to the unpaid payment, etc. of (B) while manufacturing and installing the instant machinery at the (B) factory, and (B) on November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff (B) approved that the unpaid amount of KRW 694,960,000 for the Plaintiff as of November 8, 2013 is KRW 694,960,000, and shall be paid in November 15, 2013. If this is delayed, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed (No. 4, hereinafter referred to as the “notarial deed of this case”). The Plaintiff discontinued the manufacture of the instant machinery at the rate of 20% per annum, and accordingly, the Plaintiff was required to undergo the inspection of the price of the said machinery, and the Plaintiff did not report the manufacture and supply of the said machinery due to the failure to meet the terms of value-added tax return.

D. On August 4, 2015, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 172,949,090, and global income tax amounting to KRW 105,154,630, respectively, to the Plaintiff on August 4, 2015, considering that the pertinent notarial deed was prepared on November 8, 2013 as the time of supply for the instant machinery (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 4, 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(B) Due to the nonperformance of the contract, the fulfillment of the tallying condition of the instant machine cannot be determined to be impossible. The notarial deed of this case is limited to the document prepared in order to pressure (B) to implement the instant contract and clarify the rights and obligations under the said contract. (B) it cannot be deemed that the time of supply for the instant machine became due to the Plaintiff’s establishment of a collateral security right on the instant machine, or the Plaintiff’s exercise of a lien on the said machine, and thus, the time of supply for the instant machine was not due until the time of the instant disposition. Accordingly, the instant disposition on the different premise should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) In full view of the following facts, the following facts are recognized in light of each description of evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 7 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

A) (B) Around December 21, 2012, (a) issued a tax invoice on the supply of the instant machinery by a stock company (A) with a relatively high sales performance and relatively relatively high size than the Plaintiff (A) and entered into a contract for manufacturing and supplying the instant machinery in KRW 1,181,818,182 as of November 20, 2012; and (b) issued each electronic tax invoice of KRW 1,181,818,181 from December 21, 2012 to July 2, 2013; and (b) obtained a loan of KRW 90 million from the said Corporation as security, including the amount of value-added tax, upon receipt of the said tax invoice from (A). Furthermore, (b) obtained a refund of the said amount of value-added tax, including the amount of value-added tax.

B) (B) On July 11, 2013, the Small and Medium Business Corporation established a right to collateral security on the instant machinery in accordance with the Factory and Mining Foundation Mortgage Act. At that time, an appraisal report on the said machinery (see evidence 3, 4, e.g., evidence 3, and 4) was stated as “(B) with respect to the said machinery, and is in operation as of the date of the completion of the price investigation,” and the appraisal value is assessed as KRW 1,100,000.

C) At the time of the Defendant’s investigation, the Plaintiff’s employees stated that the manufacturing process was suspended due to the destruction of the original commitment after undergoing the due diligence of the Small and Medium Business Corporation around July 2013.

D) Around September 2013, the Plaintiff discontinued the manufacture of the instant machinery, and around September 2013, the Plaintiff completed the remainder of the machinery excluding the raw material input part (B) and completed the 90% test run (No. 9, No. 4). However, the Plaintiff received only KRW 603,040,000 from (B) until October 2013.

마) 이에 원고는 2013. 11. 8. (을)로부터 이 사건 공정증서를 작성받았는데, (정)은 피고의 조사 당시 「이 사건 기계의 미완성에도 불구하고 위 공정증서상의 미지급 대금이 이 사건 계약상 총계약금액을 기준으로 산출한 미지급 대금인 694,960,000원 �= 총계약금액 1,298,000,000원(부가가치세 포함) - 기지급된 603,040,000원으로 정해진 경위」에 관하여 '미완성기계의 금액에 대금지급 지연에 대한 지연이자 등을 포함하여 총계약금액을 기준으로 정한 것이다'라는 취지로 진술하였다.

F) The Plaintiff deemed that (B) from October 2014, 2014, the Plaintiff had no intention to pay the instant machinery by placing the completion work on the part of another company, etc., and (b) is currently in the discontinuance of business.

2) According to the above facts, the following circumstances revealed: (i) the Plaintiff’s completion of the instant machine’s completion before the completion of its construction, i.e., (ii) was suspended from production due to the aggravation of financial standing and making it impracticable for the Plaintiff to receive the unpaid payment; (iii) the Plaintiff’s completion of the instant machine’s completion of construction; and (iv) the Plaintiff’s completion of construction of the instant notarial deed between B and B, regardless of the completion or inspection of the said machine’s completion of construction; and (iv) the said machine’s completion of construction, regardless of whether it was completed or inspected, shall be deemed delivered to B and reverted to B; and (b) the remainder of KRW 694,960,00,000, which remains after deducting the amount paid until the time based on the total contract amount under the instant contract, including damages