Incheon District Court 2013Gadan30300 (O7 July 17, 2013)

Unless the nature of the money in the name of the construction cost is changed, it shall not be deemed that the defect in the disposition of imposition is a grave and obvious case.

Even if there was an agreement to recognize the share of the construction cost and to withdraw a criminal complaint and provisional seizure against claim, it cannot be deemed that the nature of the money under the pretext of the payment of the construction cost is changed, and even if the money under the pretext of the criminal agreement was partially included, the defect of the imposition is not a significant and obvious case

Article 29 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Na32505 Unlawful gains

HAA

Korea

March 5, 2014

May 13, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay OOO Won to the plaintiff.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows.

In conclusion, we reject the witness BB’s testimony at the trial court, which is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff received OOOO from DD as additional evidence submitted in the trial, is not the construction cost, and is merely the criminal agreement amount, and the Plaintiff’s argument in the trial is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment at the trial court, except for the following additional determination as to the Plaintiff’s argument in the trial, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. On the second two pages of the judgment of the first instance, "a confirmation shall be made", "a confirmation shall be made, and the plaintiff who is an unregistered business operator shall be registered as an ex officio business operator, while the plaintiff is registered as an unregistered business operator

(b) Three pages 1 of the first instance judgment shall be provided with "OOOO" as "OOOOO".

(c) Two pages 3 of the first instance judgment shall be applied to the same " August 2, 2006" as " July 26, 2006".

(d) Three pages 4 of the judgment of the first instance (the additional amount of penalty taxes for unfaithful payment).

It shall be limited to "OOO(the additional amount of penalty tax for unfaithful payment)".

(e) 3 pages 9 of the first instance judgment shall be subject to an “OOO directors division” with “OO directors division”.

(f) Three pages 10 of the first instance judgment shall be applied with the words "payment" as "payment".

2. Additional matters to be determined;

As to the instant construction project, the Plaintiff and CCC Co., Ltd., which were in partnership with the Plaintiff

As a result of the Do processing, the Defendant imposed the value-added tax on BB, the representative director, on the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff included the value-added tax paid by DD among the supply price of the said value-added tax, the Plaintiff, which is subject to the said value-added tax, in addition to the disposition imposing the value-added tax on BB, the Defendant asserted that it is improper for the Defendant to impose the value-added tax in duplicate on the Plaintiff in addition to the disposition imposing the value-added tax on BB. However, the Defendant’s testimony on the items of subparagraphs 5 through 15 (including each number) and the witness BB of the trial party alone is insufficient to recognize that the value-added tax to be paid by BB in relation to the instant construction and the amount of the value-added tax paid by the Plaintiff constituted double taxation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.