Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap31455

The time of supply for attorney-at-law services shall be the time of supply for the services, not the date of the final decision but the date of the final decision.

Although the service under the delegation contract is completed on the date of winning the judgment in the delegation lawsuit, the value of supply is determined by the completion of the litigation due to the settlement of disputes over the interpretation of economic benefits, which are the factors to be considered, surrounding the calculation of the contingent fee. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem the time of supply for the service in this case.

2014Nu47466 The revocation of the disposition to impose value-added tax

OO

O Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap31455 decided April 4, 2014

September 2, 2014

September 23, 2014

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax and additional tax for 20 XX years against the Plaintiff on July 1, 200 shall be revoked.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Provision of services;

1) After having been sentenced to a judgment of a court against OO, OO, orOO under the O district court's O branch's O branch's 20 XX XX4 to file a lawsuit seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration, the Seoul High Court filed an appeal under the Seoul High Court 20 XX or the Seoul High Court (hereinafter referred to as "Delegation lawsuit") and agreed to pay 6% of economic benefits as a winning reward when concluding a contract for delegation of a lawsuit with the Plaintiff, an attorney-at-law around 200 XX.

2) 원고는 이 사건 소송위임계약에 따라 위임 소송을 수행하였고, 위 항소심 법원은 20XX. X. XX. 별지 부동산목록 기재 각 부동산 중 김포시 XXX XXX 답 XXX㎡를 제외한 나머지 부동산들(이하 '이 사건 각 부동산'이라 한다)에 관하여 소유권이전등기절차의 이행을 명하는 일부 승소의 판결을 선고하였고, 20XX. XX. XX. 대법원20XX다XXX호로 OOO 등의 상고가 기각됨으로써 위 항소심 판결이 그대로 확정되었다.

(b) Receipt of the winning reward;

1) Since then, in order for OO to not pay a winning fee, the Plaintiff received a provisional attachment order on each of the instant real estate under the XX. X. X. 20 XX. The Plaintiff filed an application for ownership transfer registration on behalf of OO after having received the provisional attachment order under the XX branch of the XX branch of the XX branch court, and filed a provisional attachment registration on each of the instant real estate under X. XX. X. XX. In the future of the Plaintiff, provisional attachment registration on each of the instant real estate was completed.

2) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the OO to seek a payment of the fee (hereinafter referred to as “compensation lawsuit”) with the Seoul XX District Court 20 XX in relation to the interpretation of the economic benefits under the instant contract for a contract for a contract for a contract for a contract for a contract for a contract for a contract for a contract for a contract with the OO. The Plaintiff asserted that with regard to the interpretation of the economic benefits under the instant contract for a contract for a contract for a contract for a contract for a contract for a contract for a contract, the amount equivalent to the market value of each of the instant real estate based on the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court should be deemed as the economic benefits of winning the contract. On the other hand, the OO argued that the amount equivalent to the market value of each of the instant real estate should be deemed as the economic

3) The above court accepted the Plaintiff’s assertion and the result of market appraisal regarding economic benefits in favor of the Plaintiff: (a) 000 won (=00 won x.06) equivalent to 6% of the market price of each real estate of 200 XX. X. 200, which is the date when the judgment was finalized; (b) 000 won (=00 won 0.06) which the Plaintiff had the obligation to pay damages for delay; (c) even though OO filed an appeal with Seoul High Court 20 XX or 200, the court dismissed the appeal; (d) again, the above Plaintiff’s favorable decision became final and conclusive by withdrawing the appeal on X. 20,000 won for each real estate of 200,000 won for additional 0,000 won for value-added tax of 0,000 won (the Defendant’s disposition 1) to which the Plaintiff received additional 20,000 won for the tax base of 0,000 won for payment of value-added 20,00.

D. The plaintiff's objection

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal for the adjudication of 20 XX. X. X., but received a decision of dismissal under XX. 20 XX.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, Gap evidence Nos. 14, 15, 16, Eul evidence No. 1 (including all branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The time when the Plaintiff’s agreed remuneration belongs to X. X., which the Plaintiff actually received, must deduct KRW 000 as necessary expenses after the application for compulsory auction, and the compensation for delayed damage cannot be deemed to be subject to taxation under the Value-Added Tax Act. Thus, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff imposed is unlawful, even though it is not subject to taxation under the Value-Added Tax Act.

2) In addition, since the instant case constitutes a justifiable ground for failing to perform obligations under Article 48(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the penalty part of the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

Article 9(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8826 of Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that the time when the service is provided shall be determined by the Presidential Decree and the necessary matters concerning the time of supply shall be determined by the Presidential Decree under paragraph (4). Accordingly, Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree so delegated shall be the time when the provision of service is completed in the case of ordinary supply (Article 1), and where the supply of service is completed (Article 22) in the case of ordinary supply, the time when the supply of service is completed is determined based on the standard payment, interim payment, long-term installment or other conditions, or the unit of supply is continuously supplied (Article 2). If the dispute over the provision of subparagraphs 1 and 2 is unable to be applied, the supply of the service shall be determined at 10.60 times when the provision of service is completed and the supply price shall be determined at 97 times when the provision is determined by the Presidential Decree; 97.6 times when the supply price is determined by the general supply price becomes final and definite.97 times when the supply price becomes final.

In this case, the following facts are revealed. ① the Plaintiff, as an attorney-at-law, entered into a delegation contract on the case of OO’s transfer of ownership as an attorney-at-law, and the contract was to pay 6% of the economic benefits immediately upon the success of delegated affairs. ② The delegation contract that the instant client requests the attorney-at-law to perform a lawsuit is an delegation contract under the Civil Act, and the contract should be made with the attorney-at-law to obtain economic benefits or be favorable to the attorney-at-law, rather than the settlement of the litigation (litigation) itself, and the obligation to be performed by the Plaintiff in the delegated litigation becomes final and conclusive under the delegation contract is 20 XX. The dispute between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s winning party’s winning party’s winning party’s winning party’s payment of the relevant real estate at the time of expiration of the contract, and the Plaintiff’s winning party’s winning party’s winning party’s payment of the relevant amount should be objectively determined based on the market value of each of the above O’s winning party’s labor contract.

Therefore, the instant disposition that imposed the value-added tax and the additional tax by deeming “20 XX. X..” as the time of supply for the service and calculating the principal tax and the additional tax should be revoked as it is unlawful without any need to further examine.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. It is so decided as per Disposition.