부가가치세등부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments between 8, 19 and 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance (Provided, That this part is excluded from the exclusion period for imposition of five years and 7 years, etc., for which the argument was withdrawn in the court of first instance), Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the portion of global income tax on the instant disposition, which is calculated by dividing the time when the income accrued from the instant disposition was reverted to the year 2005 and 2006, is unlawful, as the instant contract relates to construction works the contract term of which is less than one year, and the time when the business income was received is 206, which are the date when the construction services were completed. However, the time when the total amount of income accrued from the business income is received as set forth in the following subparagraphs:
5. The date (the date of delivery, in case of delivery of objects) on which the provision of construction, manufacturing, or other services (including contracting and reservation sales; hereafter in this subparagraph, referred to as "construction, etc.") is completed: Provided, That where the contract period is not less than one year, as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, the rate of work progress prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy shall be hereinafter referred to
The standards shall be the contract period of less than one year, and where the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy prescribes, the rate of work progress may be the basis.
"" is defined as ".
Comprehensively taking account of the purport of each statement in Eul evidence Nos. 10 and 11, Eul paid the plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 in total four times from November 1, 2005 to November 28, 2005, and then seven times in total from January 12, 2006 to March 28, 2006.