beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,950,090 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from July 12, 2016 to August 31, 2017.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 1, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for electric use of the “Sariririririririririririririririririririe” owned by the Plaintiff on the plot of land 1193 and four parcels of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, and the Defendant approved the application and sent the agreement on the use of the deep power (high voltage) on December 8, 2008 to the Plaintiff around December 10, 2008, thereby concluding the electric use contract (hereinafter “instant electric use contract”).
B. At the time of the conclusion of the instant electric use contract, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant’s principal branch office to prepare an application for electric use with the guidance of B of the customer support team staff of the said branch office. The Plaintiff submitted the business registration certificate with the name of the corporation attached to the application with the business registration certificate with the name of the corporation as “ Jeju-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri”-220706, which is the registration number of the Plaintiff on the corporate registration certificate, is the Plaintiff’s registration number on the corporate registration certificate, and the “Seoul-dong 320-
The customer column and owner column of the above application include the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “former Furtex”) and the Plaintiff’s trade name and the place of electricity use in the column of column and electrical use, respectively.
C. After receipt of the supply of electricity, the Plaintiff paid monthly electric charges including value-added tax from December 2008 to March 2016, and the Defendant did not issue a tax invoice for the said value-added tax. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not receive input tax deduction or refund for the total value-added tax amount of KRW 71,90,180 on the electric charges when filing a value-added tax return for the said period.
On April 29, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to take tax measures on the portion for which the issuance of the tax invoice was omitted, but the Defendant on April 2016, on the ground that “it is impossible to obtain input tax deduction after the issuance of the tax invoice.”