beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.02.10 2016나52648

구상금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff ordering payment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall make the plaintiff 17,811.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, a company operated jointly between March 2002 and March 2005 by C (50% of shares), D (25%) and E (25% of shares) and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on April 12, 2002 by purchasing a 1,653 square meters of the F-gu Seoul Metropolitan City on March 13, 2002 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. After the Defendant purchased the instant land, the building constructed on the said land (hereinafter “instant building”) was Class II neighborhood living facilities for general restaurants of the fourth floor, and the registration of preservation of ownership was completed on February 17, 2003 in the name of the Defendant.

C. In the process of the new construction of the instant building (hereinafter “instant construction”), the Defendant entered into a contract on August 1, 2002 with the content that the instant construction project was contracted to G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) at the contract amounting to KRW 98,700,00. On August 1, 2002, G again entered into a contract for construction works with the content that the value of the manufacture and installation of the instant steel structure would be KRW 79,712,500 among the instant construction works, on the part of G as a participant around August 2002.

G At the time of the instant construction, the Plaintiff had 70% shares in the name of his family, and the nominal representative J had 30% shares in the said name, and was actually operated by the Plaintiff, and was merged into K Co., Ltd (hereinafter “K”) after completion of the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 17, 21 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant directly executed the instant construction project with a construction business license lent from G operated by the Plaintiff, and thus, the value-added tax and corporate tax related to the instant construction project imposed on K that merged G (hereinafter “instant value-added tax,” and “instant corporate tax,” and the instant value-added tax and the instant corporate tax.