1. On January 4, 2013, the Defendant imposed value-added tax of KRW 81,563,830 on the Plaintiff on the second term of 2007.

Details of the disposition

The following facts may be acknowledged, if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the purport of the whole pleadings is visible to each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 3 and Eul evidence 1 through 3 (including branch numbers):

The Plaintiff supplied an apartment building (hereinafter “instant apartment building”) with a national housing size (hereinafter “instant apartment”) within Daejeon-dong Samsung 1, 150, Daejeon-dong Samsung 1, 2007 during the taxable period of the value-added tax, and performed balcony expansion work (hereinafter “instant service”) upon the choice of buyers for some households.

The Plaintiff determined that the supply of the instant service is included in the supply of the instant apartment subject to value-added tax exemption and declared the value-added tax exemption on the instant service.

On January 4, 2013, the Defendant issued a revised notice of KRW 85,810,610 (including additional tax on negligent tax returns, KRW 838,254, KRW 23,942,831, and KRW 8,838,254, and additional tax on additional tax on additional tax on additional tax on arrears, KRW 23,942,831, and KRW 8,838,254) on which the instant service was supplied separately from the supply of the instant apartment. On January 17, 2003, the Defendant corrected the disposition of imposition of KRW 85,810,610, and KRW 81,830 (including additional tax on KRW 37,514,039) to the Plaintiff.

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition of January 4, 2013 remaining after the said reduction is unlawful, since the instant service constitutes a supply ordinarily incidental to the supply of the instant apartment that is subject to value-added tax exemption under transaction practices, it constitutes an object of value-added tax exemption.

As to this, the defendant supplied the service of this case at his own option.