logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.12.22 2017구합538
부가가치세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Circumstances and basic facts of the disposition;

A. On August 26, 2013, the Plaintiff (i.e., “B”) entered into a construction contract with D, the Plaintiff’s representative director and “C”, under the trade name, engaging in the sales agency business, and (ii) had performed the construction of a parking lot building (hereinafter “instant construction”) according to the terms and conditions of the said contract from around that time.

1. Construction name: Construction of a new parking-only building;

2. Construction site: Southern-gu Incheon Metropolitan City E.

3. Date of commencement: Scheduled date of completion on September 2, 2013: 7,00,000 won (including value-added tax) on March 21, 2014;

6. Contributions for completed portion: At least once a month.

On December 10, 2013, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for KRW 500,000,000 out of the third progress payment of the instant construction project KRW 2,00,000,000 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”). On January 6, 2014, the Plaintiff returned KRW 550,000,000 as well as value-added tax totaling KRW 50,000,000 to D on the same day, and was issued from D on the same day a tax invoice stating the value-added tax amounting to KRW 500,00,000 as “Advance return” (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”).

C. On April 1, 2014, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice stating the supply price of KRW 500,000,000 and value-added tax amount of KRW 500,000,000 (hereinafter “instant third tax invoice”) on the premise that the Plaintiff was paid KRW 500,000 as the “construction price of the instant case” from D.

The Plaintiff deducted the input tax amount under the tax invoice 2 of this case from the output tax amount, and reported the input tax amount under the tax invoice 3 of this case to the Plaintiff on November 10, 2016 on the ground that “the tax invoice 2 and 3 of this case was issued without the supply of goods or services” was issued.

arrow