Daegu District Court-2016-Gu Partnership-22720 ( March 17, 2017)

The receipt time of business income can be based on the rate of work progress.

Dispositions that determine the receipt time of business income based on the rate of work progress are legitimate.

The exclusion period of national tax imposition under Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2017Nu5110 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition, Such as Value-Added Tax

IsaA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Daegu District Court Decision 2016Guhap22720 Decided March 17, 2017

o October 13, 2017

November 3, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Each disposition of the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on January 8, 2016 (which is a clerical error in January 7, 2016) KRW 20,740,910, value-added tax of KRW 55,497,770, value-added tax of KRW 1, 2006, value-added tax of KRW 55,497,70, and global income tax of KRW 11,503,690 for the year 206 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's explanation on this case is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except that the exercise of No. 8, No. 19 and No. 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance added the original judgment as follows (Provided, That the part of "five years of exclusion period of imposition, seven years of exclusion, etc." for which the argument was withdrawn in the court of first instance is excluded), Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

3) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant contract pertains to construction works for less than one year in the contract term, and that the receipt date of business income is 2006, which is the date of completing the provision of construction services. As such, the part of global income tax calculated by dividing the time of attribution of the income from the instant disposition by the year 2005 and 2006 is unlawful.

However, the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 19463 of Apr. 28, 2006) and Article 48 (the receipt date of business income) and the "the receipt date of business income" are as follows: 5. The date of completing the provision of construction, manufacturing, or other services (including contracting and pre-contract sales; hereafter referred to as "construction, etc." in this subparagraph): Provided, That where the contract period is not less than one year, it shall be based on the work progress rate as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy (hereinafter referred to as "work progress rate"), and where the contract period is less than one year, it may be based on the work progress rate as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy."

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 10 and 11, the following facts: (i) ParkCC paid the plaintiff a total of KRW 100,000,000 to four times from November 1, 2005 to November 28, 2005; and (ii) paid KRW 274,100,000 in total on seven occasions from January 12, 2006 to March 28, 2006; and (iii) on this basis, the defendant can recognize the fact that the time of receipt of business income from the construction of this case was determined based on the "rate of work progress" under the proviso of Article 48 subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, so the disposition of this case is lawful since it was made pursuant to the proviso of Article 48 subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's above assertion based on the premise that the receipt time of construction business income for less than one year can only be the date when construction services are completed.

3. Conclusion

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