용역대금 등 지급 청구의 소
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.
1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion concluded each management contract of this case with the Defendant and provided services to the Defendant, and the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the value-added tax despite the obligation to pay the service cost included in the value-added tax. Thus, this constitutes both default and tort. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the amount equivalent to the value-added tax as claimed
In addition, the defendant paid only the service price except value-added tax to the plaintiff, thereby gaining profits without legal grounds and causing damages to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount equivalent to the claim and the damages for delay.
B. Article 31 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that when an entrepreneur supplies goods or services, the amount equivalent to the value-added tax shall be collected from the person who receives the goods or services, merely declares that an amount equivalent to the value-added tax collected from the entrepreneur will be transferred in sequence to the person who receives the supply of the goods or services and ultimately, the entrepreneur’s right to collect the amount equivalent to value-added tax from the person
In addition, if there is no separate agreement on the burden of value-added tax, it cannot be concluded that the general trade practice that the person who receives the value-added tax is established.
(1) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da13288 Decided November 23, 2006; 2002Da38828 Decided November 22, 2002.