Where construction price is paid after a final and conclusive judgment due to defects in construction after the date of approval for use;

The supply of the service is completed and the supply price is determined as long as the construction work price to be received under the construction contract is completed and approved for use, and even if the balance of the construction work has been determined by the judgment due to the dispute arising from the defects of the service, it is only a matter concerning defects.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of denying the refund of value-added tax of KRW 101,010,364 for the first term of 2007 against the Plaintiff on May 8, 2007 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Conclusion of a contract for construction works on May 11, 2005

1) A contractor. Plaintiff

2) Contractor: prime Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as a “small and medium company”);

3) Construction works: Construction works for newly constructing one story underground, 6 stories above ground, and 2,066.42 square meters below ground on the 832-10 square meters wide and 495.2 square meters wide and 2,000 square meters wide and above (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”).

4) Construction period: from May 20, 2005 to January 20, 2006

(v) Construction cost: KRW 1.680 million (excluding value-added tax, KRW 150 million for down payment, and KRW 1.50 million for down payment), respectively, within four months from the date of inspection of use;

B. The plaintiff obtained the approval of the use of the building of this case on January 27, 2006.

(c) Return on the refund of value-added tax early January 2007;

On January 25, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a return after deducting the input tax amount of 101,010,364, equivalent to the supply value of the tax invoice issued by Nonparty Company (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from the output tax amount.

D. The defendant's disposition of this case on May 8, 2007

1) The content of the disposition. The input tax amount corresponding to the supply value of the instant tax invoice was not deducted from the output tax amount, and thus, was not refunded.

2) Grounds: The time of supply for new construction of the instant building is the date of approval for use of the said building pursuant to Article 22 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act; thus, the instant tax invoice delivered by the Plaintiff constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact that it was received after the time of supply.

3) Applicable Acts and subordinate statutes: Article 17 (2) 1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act;

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 1-2, statement of evidence No. 1, purport of entire pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's cause of claim

Even after the date of approval for use of the building of this case, the Plaintiff disputes with the non-party company regarding the defect in the construction of the building of this case, and paid the construction price to the non-party company on January 25, 2007 by a final and conclusive judgment. As such, the time of supply for the new construction of this case shall be deemed as January 25, 2007 when the provision of service is completed pursuant to Article 22 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Adde

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff paid KRW 170 million to the non-party company from May 2005 to March 2006 at the construction price. However, the Plaintiff asserted that there were defects such as ① in the location of stairs, ② the violation of the standards of door doors, ③ the shortage of the area of the parking lot, etc. on the completed building, and did not pay the remainder of the construction price to the non-party company until May 27, 2006, when four months have elapsed from the date of approval for use of the building.

2) Accordingly, on June 2, 2006, the non-party company filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Gahap46990, the above court accepted only a part of the plaintiff's allegation of the above defects, and on October 1007, the plaintiff sentenced the non-party company to "the plaintiff paid 717,149,000 won to the non-party company and delay damages from May 27, 2006 to the date of full payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

3) On January 25, 2007, the Plaintiff paid the construction balance and damages for delay to the non-party company, and received the instant tax invoice from the non-party company on the same day.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, and 4-1, purport of the whole pleadings]

C. Determination

Article 9 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that, if the time of supply of the service is deemed the time of supply for the service, matters necessary for the time of supply shall be determined by the Presidential Decree under Paragraph (4). Accordingly, Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree so delegated provides that, in the case of ordinary supply, the time when the provision of the service is completed (Article 1). (Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree provides that, in the case of complete payment standard, interim payment, long-term installment or other conditions, or continuous supply of the service which is impossible to divide the unit of supply, the time when each portion of the price is paid (Article 2). (Article 9 (2) provides that, in the case where the provisions of subparagraphs 1 and 2 are not applicable, the time when the provision of the service is completed and the price of supply is fixed (Article 3).

Therefore, since the construction cost of this case, which was paid after the date of entering into a construction contract and the date of approval for the use of the building of this case, falls under the ordinary supply of services for which the supply price is determined at the time of the completion of the service, and thus, the date of approval for the use of the building of this case where the provision of service is completed shall be deemed the time of supply for the service. As long as the construction cost of this case was completed under the condition that the provision of service is determined upon the completion of the construction contract, the construction price of this case shall be deemed to be the time of supply for the service, and as long as the construction cost of this case was already determined upon the completion of the construction contract between the Plaintiff and the non-party company, even if the lawsuit was filed due to a dispute over the settlement of the construction price and the construction balance was determined in the judgment thereof, it shall not be applicable to Article 22 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (Article 22 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act).

Therefore, there is no reason to believe that it is the seafarer's senior to another electric system.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.