출연재산의 피담보채무는 부담부증여로써 재화의 공급에 해당함.[국승]
Daejeon District Court 2013Guhap2534 (Ob. 12, 2014)
Cho High Court Decision 2013Na0324 (No. 24, 2013)
The secured debts of contributed property constitute the supply of goods by means of onerous donation.
Since the debt of this case was not directly repaid by the Plaintiff but repaid to the financial institution the amount of money given as collateral and loaned by the instant corporation, the disposition imposing value-added tax on the property property by deeming the secured debt of the property as an onerous donation is legitimate.
2014Nu10156 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.
○ ○
○ Head of tax office
Daejeon District Court Decision 2013Guhap2534 Decided February 12, 2014
May 1, 2014
May 29, 2014
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 95,052,810 on July 10, 2012 against the Plaintiff by the Defendant shall be revoked.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
This court's reasoning is as follows, the second 5th '○○' of the judgment of the court of first instance is '○○○', and the third - 17 to 4 are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the second - - 5th '○○' of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the third - 17 to 9th - 9 are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of
[Attachment]
1. As to the assertion related to principal tax
In full view of the purport of the pleadings in Gap 1, 5, 12, 14, 15 Eul 2 and 5 (including serial numbers), the board of directors of the corporation of this case decided on October 22, 2008 to acquire the obligations of this case. The corporation of this case was permitted to dispose of its basic property from the ○○○ market on November 18, 2008. The corporation of this case acquired the obligations of this case from the plaintiff on November 21, 2008, on January 20, 2001, entered the above contract on January 5, 2010, 2000, 100, 300,000,000,000 won, 10,000,000 won, 20,000,000 won, 10,000,000 won, 20,000 won, 10,000,000 won, 200.
In light of the above facts, the corporation of this case acquires the debt of this case and becomes the debtor.
On January 5, 2010, the contract to establish a collateral was terminated, and again, it was deemed that ○○ Cooperative provided the instant real estate as collateral and completed the registration of the establishment of a collateral and repaid the instant loan with the borrowed money.
Even as alleged by the Plaintiff, the instant case from January 9, 2009 to November 10 of the same year
Even if it is assumed that the instant obligation was repaid in the amount of KRW 1 billion deposited into a corporation, as seen above, the Plaintiff maintained the status of its obligor and was able to repay the instant obligation, as seen in the foregoing recognition, the Plaintiff had the instant corporation take over the instant obligation after obtaining a resolution of the board of directors of the instant corporation and the permission of the ○○ market, and thereafter had the instant corporation repay the instant obligation as the obligor, regardless of the source of the repayment. Therefore, it should be deemed that the instant corporation repaid the instant obligation, regardless of the source of the repayment.
Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff directly repaid the instant debt after the contribution of the instant real estate was made. Therefore, from a different point of view, the Defendant’s assertion on this part of the Plaintiff’s prior to this point of view is without merit without further review.
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just as it is concluded, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition.