구상금
1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants, and Defendant 2 Industrial Complex Construction Co., Ltd., and Pacific Development Co., Ltd.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the defendants of the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as that of the defendants of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil
2. Parts used or added;
A. On March 26, 2005, the part of the first instance court's decision, No. 15, "The defendant appealed to the above judgment but the plaintiff appealed to the above judgment." The plaintiff asserts that "No. 9 of the first instance court's judgment "No. 10, No. 18, No. 13-2 of the first instance court's judgment "No. 21, No. 2005, Mar. 22, 2005," and "No. 20, No. 23, No. 23, No. 8 of the first instance court's judgment" are "from March 26, 2005," and "No. 22, No. 20, No. 15 of the first instance court's judgment, which is "The defendant appealed to the above judgment," and the plaintiff cannot claim damages equivalent to value-added tax since it constitutes an input tax amount. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserted that the apartment house in this case constitutes a refund or a refund from the output tax amount.
In case where the defect repair is required due to the defect in the contract construction work of the beneficiary, if the contractor is the person liable to pay the Value-Added Tax Act, and the defect repair falls under the supply of the service that was used or is to be used for his own business, the value-added tax required for the defect repair falls under the input tax amount stipulated in Article 17 (1) 1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act, and thus the contractor may deduct or be refunded