A. From July 2012 to May 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) requested the Defendant, the owner of the land, to transfer the obstacles that were interfered with in the process of performing road works, etc. as indicated in the “name of construction” in the attached Table in the Pyeongtaek-si (hereinafter “instant construction works”); and (b) requested the Defendant, the owner of the land, to install the project site to an outer area.

B. The Defendant: (a) moved the obstacles in the project site; (b) filed a claim with the Plaintiff for the use of the facilities for electric poles (hereinafter “this case’s facilities for electric poles”) and the value-added tax thereon; and (b) the Plaintiff paid the amount corresponding to each value-added tax stated in the “paid amount” column on the relevant date indicated in the attached Table “payment Date” column.

C. On July 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant stating that “The cost of the relocation of the instant obstacles constitutes a non-taxable object of value-added tax, and thus, the Defendant’s return of the value-added tax equivalent to the value-added tax that was paid to the Defendant as unjust enrichment.”

On July 6, 2018, when the instant lawsuit was pending, the Defendant returned KRW 660,837,560 in total (i.e., KRW 59,593,358 in 2012) (i.e., KRW 87,062,062, KRW 181 in 2013, KRW 93,040,653 in 2014, KRW 120,001, KRW 348 in 2016, KRW 275,467,586 in 2017) to the Plaintiff.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff filed a request with the Board of Audit and Inspection around January 201, 201 to review the revocation of the imposition of KRW 72,218,310, which was imposed at the Defendant’s Sungdong Branch on January 19, 201 by the head of Sungdong Tax Office. Accordingly, the Board of Audit and Inspection on September 27, 2012 can not be deemed as compensation for losses because the legal nature of the cost of removing obstacles caused by public works falls under the legal nature of compensation for losses and cannot be deemed as compensation for the supply of services subject to the Value-Added Tax Act.