약정금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On March 15, 201, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Defendant entered into a contract for construction of green facilities on the land, other than Pyeongtaek-si and one parcel (hereinafter “instant contract”); and (b) the Plaintiff was separately paid value-added tax when entering into said contract; (c) the Defendant did not pay the said value-added tax; and (d) the Defendant incurred a loss on which penalty tax was imposed by a secondary tax office that did not file a sales report on the said construction; (b) the Defendant claimed that the Defendant should compensate for the amount of value-added tax of KRW 39,00,000 and penalty tax of KRW 12,84,879, totaling KRW 51,84,879, and interest for delay.
In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that when entering into the instant contract, the construction cost was set at KRW 390,000,000, including value-added tax, and that the extinctive prescription of the claim for construction cost has expired after the lapse of three years from June 30, 2011 when the instant construction was completed, the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless.
2. According to the judgment of the court below, Gap evidence No. 1 (the construction contract in this case) stated that the construction cost shall be KRW 390,000,000, and the value-added tax shall be set aside. However, after the completion of the construction project, the plaintiff cannot find any trace of requesting the defendant to pay value-added tax, and the amount of sales reported after the completion of the construction project is investigated by the tax office as a suspicion of omitting the report of sales at the tax office is also 390,000,000,000, including value-added tax, the amount of sales reported after the completion of the construction project in this case shall be deemed as including all the amount of value-added tax.
Therefore, in addition to the cost of construction of KRW 390,00,000 under the contract of this case, the Plaintiff’s above assertion premiseds that the Defendant is liable to pay value-added tax of KRW 39,00,000 to the Plaintiff is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.