건물 준공일 이후에 추가공사가 없었다면 준공일을 공급시기로 보는 것임[국승]
Busan District Court 2012Guhap1922 (O1, 2013)
National Tax Service Review Division 2011-0181 ( October 26, 2012)
In the absence of additional construction after the completion date of the building, the completion date shall be deemed the time of supply.
(1) The supply of the instant service is completed on the date of completion and the supply value becomes final and conclusive. Thus, even if the contract for the payment of construction cost on at least three occasions is concluded, the time of completion should be deemed as the time of supply as long as the provision of the service is completed and the supply value is to be paid after the completion of the contract.
Article 9 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree thereof
Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act
2013Nu338 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax
AA Construction Corporation
The director of Busan District Office
Busan District Court Decision 2012Guhap1922 Decided January 11, 2013
August 14, 2013
September 11, 2013
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. On April 14, 2011, the defendant sought a correction of the purport of the claim as above, including a rejection disposition of refund of value-added tax (this tax) for the second term portion of value-added tax (this tax) for the plaintiff on April 14, 2011, and a refusal disposition of refund of value-added tax for the second term of 2010 (this tax) for the second term portion of value-added tax (this tax) for the first instance court to revoke only the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the second term of 2010, but the correction of the purport of the claim was made in addition to the revocation disposition of refund refusal disposition of value-added tax for the second term of 2010 for the second term portion of value-added tax (this tax) for the plaintiff at the trial. Therefore, despite a change in the external form, the purport of the claim is not modified, and it seems clear that both the correction of the purport of the claim were made in writing for the second term of 200O and 312.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment except for the part "as stated below, Nos. 4, 6, and 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance." Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The contents of after repair;
“E. Accordingly, on April 14, 2011, the Defendant imposed value-added tax on the Plaintiff on KRW OOO (this title + additional tax OOOOO) for the second term period of 2010 (the disposition includes the Plaintiff’s refusal to file an application for refund of the value-added tax for the second term of 2010; hereinafter in this disposition, “the disposition imposing value-added tax on the principal tax including the disposition rejecting the application for refund ex officio,” excluding the penalty amount that the Defendant revoked ex officio. The Defendant filed a request with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for the imposition of value-added tax on October 26, 201, but was dismissed on January 26, 2012.”
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.