beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.08 2014가합592634

손해배상 등 청구의 소

Text

1. As to the Plaintiff’s KRW 200,217,979 and its KRW 51,463,528 among them, the Defendant shall start from August 1, 2013, and 42.

Reasons

1. Facts which have no dispute over the basic facts [based for recognition], Gap evidence 2 through 7 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The Plaintiff, along with the Geum River Construction Co., Ltd., on April 2004, was awarded a contract with the Defendant, who was a project implementer for the housing site development project for the said project district (hereinafter “instant project district”), at the contract price of KRW 16,79,00,000 for the said project district (hereinafter “instant project”).

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”). B.

The construction of this case includes the construction of roads, landscaping, water supply and drainage in the project district of this case, and the part supplied for the construction of "national housing" under Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Housing Act is included in the housing construction site that the defendant supplies at a cost in the project district of this case.

C. As a result of a review of the payment status of value-added tax on national housing construction service projects implemented by the Defendant, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City issued an order to exempt value-added tax corresponding to this portion as well as the amount corresponding to the ratio of the site for national housing construction to the total supply area (hereinafter “ratio of the site for national housing”) among the services corresponding to the free supply area, such as roads, parks, facility green areas, etc. provided outside the national housing complex, which are exempted from value-added tax, to the national housing construction services exempt from value-added tax. On July 2007, 207, the value-added tax that was paid to the Defendant pursuant to the said conclusion was refunded through a request for correction, and the order was issued to withdraw the reduction of the construction cost through the change

Accordingly, the defendant ordered the plaintiff to correct the value-added tax as above, and the contract of this case is concluded.