logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.05.16 2018누78680
부가가치세경정거부처분취소
Text

1. The part of the claim extended by this court among the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed.

2. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following revocation is revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 토목건축공사업을 영위하는 법인이다.

B. On January 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim for rectification with the Defendant for deducting each amount stated in the column for “the first bad debt tax amount” in attached Table 1 from the grounds that the extinctive prescription of each construction price claim stated in the attached Table 1 has expired, on the grounds that the construction work service was provided to B, C, D, and E (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant trading companies,” and that each of the “stock companies” was omitted in the name of each of the respective companies.

On February 20, 2017, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for correction on the ground that “it is objectively difficult to confirm the details of the supply of goods or services and the occurrence of bad debt.”

[2] The part of the attached Table 2 (excluding the part concerning the second B of 2012, 1,374,381,548) that the Plaintiff contests in this court (excluding the part concerning the second B of 2012) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On May 25, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 25, 2017, but was dismissed on September 26, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 6, 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion falls under “a bond which cannot be recovered due to loss” under the Value-Added Tax Act, and thus, the amount of the bad debt should be deducted.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition that did not accept the Plaintiff’s claim for the bad debt tax deduction is unlawful.

The Plaintiff provided construction works to each of the instant transaction enterprises except B, and failed to recover the construction cost. Each of the instant outstanding claims is from February 2, 2011 to February 2, 2012.

arrow