Freeboard (Attorney Labor Freeboard et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Ulsan District Tax Office and one other

May 20, 1987

The imposition of value-added tax amount of 76,063,00 won for the second period of 1980 against the plaintiff on January 6, 1986 by the head of Ulsan District Tax Office and the imposition of tax amount of 34,603,630 won for the global income tax for the first period of 1980 against the plaintiff on February 1, 1986 by the head of Ulsan District Tax Office and the imposition of tax amount of 34,603,630 won for the first period of 1980 against the plaintiff, and the imposition of tax amount of 6,992,420 won for the defense tax, which exceeds the global income tax amount of 24,459,016 won for the second period of 1986.

The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant Dongin Tax Office are dismissed.

Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiff and the head of Ulsan District Tax Office shall be borne by the same defendant, and the part arising between the plaintiff and the head of the same tax office shall be divided into three parts, one of which shall be borne by the same defendant, and the other,

On February 1, 1986, the Plaintiff sought a judgment as to the head of Ulsan District Tax Office's order, and against the head of the defendant East District Tax Office's order, the portion exceeding KRW 10,14,611, defense tax amount exceeding KRW 2,032,214 among the disposition of imposition of global income tax amounting to KRW 34,60,60,630, and the defense tax amounting to KRW 6,92,420, which belongs to the year 1980 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked. The costs of the lawsuit shall be assessed against the same defendant.

1. Details of taxation; and

피고 울산세무서장이 1986. 1. 6. 원고에 대하여 1980년 제2기 귀속분 부가가치세 금 76,063,000원의 부과처분을 하고, 피고 동래세무서장이 같은해 2. 1. 원고에 대하여 1980년 귀속분 종합소득세 금 34,603,630원, 방위세 금 6,992,420원의 부과처분을 한 사실은 당사자들 사이에 다툼이 없고, 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑제5호증(을제5호증과 같다), 갑제6호증, 갑제8호증의 2, 3, 을제1호증의 1, 2, 을제2호증의 1 내지 3, 을제3호증의 1, 2, 을제4호증의 1, 2, 을제6호증의 1 내지 3,을제7호증의 1, 2, 을제8호증, 증인 이상식의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑제7호증, 갑제8호증의 1의 각 기재내용과 위 이상식, 증인 이복대의 각 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 소외 울산 남외지구 토지구획정리조합(이하 '조합'이라 줄여서 쓴다)을 울산시 학성동, 반구동, 남외동의 각 일부지역에 대한 토지구획정리사업을 실시하는 것을 목적으로 하여 1979. 11. 27. 설립허가를 받아, 같은해 12. 22. 설립등기를 한 법인이고, 원고는 위 사업시행 지구내에 토지를 소유한 지주였던 사실, 이에 위 조합은 조합의 설립등기가 이루어 지기전인 1979. 11. 30. 원고에게 위 사업에 따른 시공일체를 도급하는 한편, 조합설립 및 시행인가, 공사설계승인, 환지처분에 따른 업무, 대위등기 및 정산업무등까지도 원고에게 일임한 사실, 원고는 위와 같이 조합으로부터 공사를 도급받게 되자 소외 이원홍, 소외 주식회사 서일건설등에게 하도급하여 공사를 시공하다가, 1981. 1. 31.경 부터는 위 시공에 따른 일체의 권리, 의무를 소외 황선송에게 넘겨주어 수급인의 지위에서 탈퇴하여 버렸는데, 그가 시공중이던 1980. 6. 20.경 그때까지의 공사기성분으로 금 486,223,080원을 조합에 청구하였고, 위 조합은 같은달 25. 검수를 거쳐 원고의 청구대로 기성금액을 확정한 후 위 일자를 전후하여 수회에 걸쳐 이를 전부 지급한 사실, 그런데 위 조합은 같은달 30. 위에서 본 원고의 기성금액에 조합 스스로 지출한 인건비등을 합산한 금 647,163,000원을 기성금액으로 하여 울산시장에게 중간검사를 요청하였고, 울산시장은 같은해 7. 15. 중간검사 결과를 통보함에 있어서 1980. 6. 30. 기준으로 기성금액을 금 643,610,000원으로 감액하여 인정하였던 사실, 한편 피고들은 앞서본 바와 같이 원고가 위 조합에 건설용역을 공급하여 이에 따른 소득을 올렸음에도 불구하고, 부가 가치세의 예정 및 확정신고, 종합소득세의 자진납부신고의무등을 이행하지 아니하자, 피고 울산세무서장은 1986. 1. 6. 원고의 용역공급가액을 금 585,100,000원(울산시장이 인정한 기성금액 643,610,000×(100/110))으로 하여, 이에 따른 부가가치세(미등록가산세, 신고납부불성실가산세 포함) 금 76,063,000원을 원고에게 부과처분하였고, 피고 동래세무서장은 같은해 2. 1. 원고의 1980년도 근로소득 금 4,416,620원(이에 대한 갑종근로소득세는 원고가 원천징수 당하였다)에 위 공사금 수입의 소득표준율에 따른 추계소득 금 60,850,000원(585,100,000×소득표준율 (10.4/100))을 합산한 금 65,267,020원을 과세표준으로 하여 별지세액계산서의 결정세액란에 기재한 방식으로 종합소득세(가산세 포함)를 금 34,603,637원, 방위세(가산세 포함)을 금 6,992,425원으로 결정하여 10원미만은 버리고, 이를 원고에게 부과처분한 사실등을 각 인정할 수 있고, 반증이 없다.

The plaintiff did not provide services to the above union, and there is no business income from the above union. The defendants deemed the plaintiff as the contractor of the above union and imposed value-added tax, global income tax, defense tax, etc. as above. However, the plaintiff argued that this should be revoked as an illegal disposition, but the fact that the plaintiff received construction from the above union and performed construction work is the same as the above. Thus, the above argument is groundless.

2. Appropriateness of any disposition imposing value-added tax;

Even if the Plaintiff is obligated to pay value-added tax on the above building services, the time of supply for such services is 1.66. The Plaintiff’s imposition of value-added tax on June 25, 1980 upon the Plaintiff’s request that the union examine and determine the time of supply. Thus, the imposition of value-added tax is unlawful after the lapse of five years from July 25, 1980. The Defendant Ulsan District Tax Office’s imposition of value-added tax on the above services on July 15, 1980. Thus, the imposition of value-added tax on the above services is legitimate within the period of 1.6 years from the date of the final return and payment of value-added tax on January 25, 1981. The imposition of value-added tax on the above services is 1.6 years from the date of the above imposition of value-added tax, 2.6 years from the date of the final return and payment of value-added tax on the same 1.6 years from the date of the imposition of value-added tax on the above services.

In conclusion, the exclusion period of the imposition of value-added tax in this case depends on the plaintiff's construction service time. According to the above Gap evidence 5 (No. 5) of this case, the plaintiff and the above union can recognize that the above union agreed to pay construction cost in the future and in the period necessary for the promotion of the project, upon the plaintiff's request, and there is no counter-proof. According to Article 9 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 22 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where the service cannot be classified as the supply unit as the completion payment standard is continuously supplied, the provision of the service is completed and the supply price becomes final and conclusive. Thus, the time of supply for the construction service in this case is the time when the supply price becomes final and conclusive, and the plaintiff's claim that the supply price was made after the plaintiff's establishment of the association and the association's completion of the construction work in this case's interim inspection procedure cannot be viewed as being illegal.

3. Appropriateness of the disposition imposing global income tax and defense tax;

The facts are as follows: (a) the head of the Dongin Tax Office considers the Plaintiff’s amount of income from the construction services of this case as KRW 585,100,00 and determines the amount of business income as KRW 60,850,000 by multiplying the standard of income by 10.5%; and (b) imposed the Plaintiff the global income tax and defense tax on the basis of such determination; (c) however, the fact that the Plaintiff’s amount of income from the construction services of this case is merely KRW 486,223,080, is recognized as above; (d) the fact that the standard rate of income for the construction services of this case was 9.5% in 1980 and that the Plaintiff was subject to the withholding of KRW 320,493, 32,000 for the wage and salary income tax of KRW 4,620 in 1980; and (e) there is no dispute between the parties concerned, and thus, the amount exceeding the global income tax and defense tax amount of KRW 964,50.

4. Conclusion

Thus, among the disposition imposing value-added tax on the plaintiff by the head of Ulsan District Tax Office, the part exceeding KRW 24,459,016, and the defense tax amount exceeding KRW 4,060,206, which is the above-mentioned global income tax on the plaintiff by the head of Ulsan District Tax Office, among the disposition imposing global income tax and defense tax on the plaintiff by the head of the defendant East District Tax Office, should be revoked. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the head of Ulsan District Tax Office is legitimate and justified, and the plaintiff's claim against the head of the defendant East District Tax Office is justified within the above-mentioned scope, and the remaining claim shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 89, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act.

June 17, 1987

Judges Seo Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)

[Attachment Form Omission (Tax Calculation Table)]