Value-added tax on investment in kind in the reclaimed land of public waters and the addition thereto; and

Tax return was filed on July 21, 201 (hereinafter referred to as "the act of reporting value-added tax of this case") and July 21, 201

Value-added tax was paid to the Office KRW 944,047,550.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on this safety defense

The defendant's claim for the refund of value-added tax is not a civil lawsuit but a party lawsuit under the Administrative Litigation Act.

Since the instant lawsuit is in accordance with the procedure, it is unlawful and deemed unlawful.

The lawsuit of this case is not a claim for refund of value added tax, but the added value of this case.

the return of the amount equivalent to the value-added tax paid on the premise that the filing of the tax return is void as a matter of course.

That is, it is in accordance with the civil procedure as a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment under civil law (Supreme Court).

The defendant's defense of this case is without merit. The defendant's defense of this case is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Unlike the case of transferring the reclaimed land of this case together with the reclamation license, this case

However, the act of investing in kind in the public waters is "supply of goods" as provided in the Value-Added Tax Act.

It does not constitute an investment in kind in the reclaimed land of this case as the transfer of land.

It is apparent that the plaintiff was not liable to pay value-added tax because it was exempted from taxation.

In addition, the director of the tax office under the defendant's jurisdiction could easily find the above facts, and thus, the father of this case.

The declaration of provisional value-added tax is null and void, because the defect is significant and apparent. Accordingly, the plaintiff's payment is made.

value-added tax of KRW 944,047,550,000,000,000

Ro. The defendant shall return to the plaintiff KRW 944,047,550 and additional charges or damages for delay.

have an obligation to do so.

B. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

In addition to the above macroscopic evidence and each statement of Gap 6 to 14, the whole purport of the pleading is examined.

The following facts are recognized:

① The largest shareholder of △△△△△△ due to the Plaintiff’s issuance of new shares

The share ratio of the capital stock of the company at the time of the change of the place of residence (hereinafter referred to as the "place of residence")

50.77% to 24.85%, and the largest shareholder of △△△△△△ is the Plaintiff’s equity ratio of 41.15%.

A. At the time, the issue of new stocks is invalid on February 22, 2010 by Seoul Southern District Court 2010 Ga3538, Seoul Southern District Court 2010

A lawsuit was filed.

On November 26, 2010, the above court issued new shares in violation of Article 418(2) of the Commercial Act.

The Supreme Court rendered a judgment that the right to vote at a time is violated by the existing shareholders and thus becomes null and void.

The △△△△△△△△△ (201Na17030) appealed, but the Seoul High Court (201Na17030) September 29, 2011

The △△△△△△ representative made a declaration of termination of the lawsuit on the grounds that the appeal was withdrawn by the △△△

Although △△△△△△△ (201da86898) appealed, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on December 22, 2011.

② After the Plaintiff invested in kind in △△△△△△△△△△△△△△, the Plaintiff’s reclaimed land of this case.

6.The project undertaker of the public water reclamation license of this case from around 00 ○○○○, for a construction period of 12

A revision to the implementation plan was made to extend the monthly period.

이후 △△△△△△는 2011. 7. 14. ◎◎◎◎주식회사(이하 '◎◎◎'이라 한다)

In the case, the reclaimed land of this case was transferred to 7 billion won, and the plaintiff was also the same day.

The amount of the purchase price of the public water reclamation license on the reclaimed land of this case at 10 million won

도하는 계약을 체결하였고, ◎◎◎◎은 원고에게 위 공유수면매립면허권의 양도대금

6.8 billion won was paid.

③ Value-added tax following the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant value-added tax on July 21, 201

The fact that 944,047,550 won has been paid is as seen earlier.

However, the Plaintiff shall bear by contribution in kind in the reclaimed land of this case

△△△△△△△△△△△ even though the amount of the value tax was agreed to be paid to the Plaintiff

On August 22, 2011, the Plaintiff did not perform this, and the Seoul Southern District Court against the △△△△△△△△△△△△△ on August 22,

payment of KRW 944,047,600, which is equivalent to value-added tax paid by the Plaintiff as No. 2011 tea 13401

An application for a payment order with its content was filed.

△△△△△△△△△△ on September 8, 2011, the lower court held that the Plaintiff KRW 944,047,600 and the place where the Plaintiff did so.

A payment order was issued to pay annual damages, and around that time, the above payment order was issued to △△△△△△△.

This service was served and confirmed.

④ The Plaintiff attempted to enforce enforcement based on the above payment order, and △△△△△△△, Seoul Southern.

District Court 2013Gahap107936, filed a lawsuit of demurrer to the claim, and the said court on September 3, 2015

The △△△△△△△ Office’s claim to deny the compulsory execution based on the above payment order is entirely dismissed.

The Court sentenced the Supreme Court's judgment.

The plaintiff appealed against this, but the Seoul High Court (2015Na2054538) March 30, 2016.

The Plaintiff transferred the instant reclaimed land along with the instant reclamation license and the instant reclamation license;

L. The act of reclaiming the public waters of this case, but making an investment in kind is the public use of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act.

1) Value-added tax paid by the Plaintiff pursuant to the act of reporting value-added tax in this case is KRW 944,047,550 (Evidence A5), and the Plaintiff applied for payment order at the time of applying for payment order.

The 944,047,600 won was claimed.

Value-added tax is not imposed because it does not fall under class, and is based on this premise.

A payment agreement equivalent to the value-added tax that △△△△△ shall be paid to the Plaintiff shall take effect.

reasons that there is no reason

The judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal was pronounced, and the above judgment was not filed by the Plaintiff.

was finally determined.

2) Determination

In principle, in case of taxes in the method of tax payment by declaration, the taxpayer himself;

Tax liability is specifically determined by filing a return on the amount of tax, and such payment is made.

the State or local self-government shall be the performance of the specific tax obligation fixed by the declaration.

Since an organization holds the tax amount paid on the basis of the established tax claims, the organization's tax payment.

a declaration made by a person liable to file a report shall not be void as a matter of course due to a significant and apparent defect;

not directly unjust enrichment, and in this context, the defect in the reporting act is significant and apparent.

the purpose of the laws and regulations which form the basis for the filing of the report, as to whether the filing of the report falls under the invalidity of the statute;

It examines the meaning, functions, and legal remedies for defective reporting acts in a teleological manner.

At the same time, the specific circumstances leading to the filing of the report shall be individually identified and reasonably determined.

Supreme Court Decision 94Da60363 Decided December 5, 1995, Supreme Court Decision 2006 Decided April 23, 2009

C.1257(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81257). Taxation of any legal or factual relationship not subject to taxation

Where there are objective circumstances that could be mistaken for the subject matter, the facts shall be accurately stated.

If it is possible to identify whether it is subject to taxation only after the investigation, the defect is

It cannot be seen as apparent in appearance (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002).

In light of the above legal principles, the value-added tax return of this case has been reduced to significant and obvious defects.

about whether it is void as a matter of course, the act of making investment in kind in the public waters of this case shall be deemed to be a matter of course.

The reason that the supply of composition does not constitute a supply of composition and thus the value-added tax is not imposed.

The fact that △△△△△'s objection against the plaintiff was accepted is as mentioned above.

On the other hand, however, it is recognized that the above basic facts and facts were added to the whole purport of the pleading.

The following circumstances: ① Even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s agent business by △△△△△△△

It was paid after hearing the opinion of the person and voluntarily reporting the value-added tax of this case.

On the other hand, it is inevitable to report and pay the value-added tax with knowledge that there is no liability for payment.

It can be found that the tax authority was involved or involved in the reporting and payment process.

There was no error in the act of filing the value-added tax return in this case by the ○○ Tax Office, the tax authority

there is no evidence to prove that he was aware of the fact, and instead, the return of the value-added tax of this case

At the time of the above, the plaintiff was 1,88,095 shares in return for investment in kind in the reclaimed land of this case.

The status of receiving the shares of △△△△△△△△ was the subject of the public waters reclamation in this case and its official

(1) The fact that the license has been separated and invested in kind and transferred and the legal effect therefrom shall be

In light of the fact that it was revealed through the judgment of the case of arrest, the panel of this case

An act of declaration of value-added tax is subject to objective circumstances that could mislead the person into being subject to taxation.

and the defect may be found to be a case in which the transactional relation can be accurately examined.

(3) The Plaintiff’s issuance of the instant new stocks following investment in kind in the reclaimed land of this case

Voluntary payment of value-added tax even under the circumstances where the first instance court was sentenced to the invalidity of the disposition;

(4) After reporting and paying the value-added tax of this case, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.

Before filing a claim for correction under Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, in any form, to the defendant

No objection is raised against the reporting act of value-added tax. 5 The plaintiff does not raise an objection to itself.

The amount equivalent to the value-added tax on △△△△△△ on the premise that the liability to pay value-added

△△△△△△△△’s objection to a claim filed by the △△△△△△

△△△△△△△ is unable to be compensated for the amount equivalent to the value-added tax already paid.

For more than six years from the date of filing the value-added tax return, and more than five years from the date of such payment;

Until July 19, 2016, the return of value-added tax is claimed as invalid and paid.

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that the above facts are being recognized, the act of reporting the value-added tax of this case alone.

It is insufficient to recognize that the existing defects are significant and apparent to be void as a matter of course, and otherwise,

there is no evidence to be determined.

Therefore, the improper act of this case based on the premise that the act of reporting value-added tax in this case is null and void.

The claim for return of benefit does not need to be judged further.

4. Conclusion

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

(c)

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

The defendant of the Young-gu Office shall pay to the plaintiff 944,047,550 won and 3.7% per annum from July 22, 2011 to February 29, 2012; 4% per annum from such date to February 28, 2013; 3.4% per annum from such date to March 14, 2014; 2.9% per annum from such date to March 5, 2015; 2.5% per annum from such date to March 6, 2016; 1.8% per annum from such date to the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case; and 15% per annum from such date to the date of complete payment.

A. A. Around February 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained a reclamation license on the public waters surface No. 96,308 square meters of 00 ○○○○○○○○○ 1 branch line for the purpose of building a shipbuilding facility site; and (b) performed reclamation until June 2009. On October 20, 2009, the Plaintiff obtained the reclamation license on the public waters surface No. 1 branch line No. 96,308 square meters from ○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○.).

D. On March 2010, at the time of filing a corporate tax return, the tax agent of △△△△△△△ presents his opinion that the investment in kind of the instant public waters reclaimed land is subject to value-added tax. On March 25, 2010, the Plaintiff issued a revised tax invoice to △△△△△△△△△△△△△△ on March 25, 201