공사대금
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 Plaintiff asserted that, at the request of the Defendant from August 201 to October 2012, 201, the Plaintiff produced and installed the household and the main household in the model house and the completed apartment to be built by the Defendant.
(hereinafter “instant construction project.” The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of the construction cost under the jurisdiction of the Changwon District Court Branch 2013Gahap2623, and the value-added tax was not included in the claim amount.
The defendant deposited KRW 135,000,000 to the plaintiff according to the decision of recommending reconciliation finalized in the above case.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice with the value of KRW 135,00,000,000 in the Defendant’s future. Accordingly, the Defendant should pay KRW 13,50,000 to the Plaintiff.
2. Determination:
A. Article 31 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that when a related legal entity supplies goods or services, an amount equivalent to the value-added tax shall be collected from the person who receives the goods or services, merely declares that the amount equivalent to the value-added tax collected from the business entity will ultimately be borne by the final consumer in sequence. Therefore, there is no judicial right to collect the amount equivalent to the value-added tax from the person who receives the goods
If there is a separate agreement between the parties to the transaction to bear the value-added tax, the enterpriser may claim for payment of the amount equivalent to the value-added tax to the person who receives the supply pursuant to the agreement, and the aforementioned agreement on the burden of value-added tax is not necessarily required at the time of the supply of goods or services, but is valid even after the supply, and may be done in an implied manner
Supreme Court Decision 2002Da38828 Delivered on November 22, 2002