Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap23539 ( June 26, 2014)

Where the value of supply is not determined, the provision of the service shall be completed and the supply price shall be determined at the time of supply.

The time of supply in this case falls under the case where a tax invoice cannot be issued on the basis of "the time the provision of services is completed" because all parties to the contract were not aware of which price will be determined, and the time when the provision of services is completed and the value of supply is determined is deemed to be the time of supply.

2014Nu57913 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

Plaintiff and Appellant

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap23539 ( June 26, 2014)

January 16, 2015

January 30, 2015

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Claim: The Defendant’s disposition rejecting refund of value-added tax of KRW 00,000,000 on August 16, 201, and imposing value-added tax of KRW 000,000 on the Plaintiff on February 2, 2011, and revocation of the disposition rejecting refund of KRW 00,000,000 and imposition of value-added tax of KRW 00,000,000 on the first term portion of year in 2012.

2. Purport of appeal: Revocation of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of the following matters, and thus, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) The construction period and "construction period" in Chapter 2 shall be changed to "construction period".

(2) The third parallel "0,000,000 won" shall be deemed "0,000,000,000".

(3) On the 8th page 7, the payment shall be made "on the 7th page".

(4) The 6th parallel "0,000,000 won" shall be deemed "0,000,000 won".

(5) Part 9, Chapter 7, "" shall read as follows: Provided, That the construction price specified in attached Form 2 shall be 2011.

9. 27. BB. 00,000,000 won paid to BB was paid separately from the details of the damage assessment.

(6) On the 9th page "00,000,000 won" shall be changed to "0,000,000".

(7) On the 9th page 10, "Frush" was added to "(Provided, That the construction price stated in attached Table 3 was paid to CCC on January 19, 2012, and KRW 0,000,000,000 paid to DD on February 1, 2012, and KRW 0,00,000 paid separately from the details of damage assessment)".

(8) The 5th page "not only" shall be changed to " not only".

9) Subsequent to Chapter 6 of Chapter 10, "(the defendant shall also be the contract price specified in the contract of this case, and the contract price of this case shall be the contract price specified in the contract of this case, but the plaintiff reserves conditional rights to ex post change the contract price into the contract price of the insurance company under the condition of suspension under the condition that the contract amount would be lower than the contract price. However, as seen earlier, the contract price shall be deemed to be set as the contract price in the case where the adjusted amount was lower than the contract price under the contract, and the case where the adjusted amount was higher than the contract price. Thus, the above argument is without merit without further review)."

(10) Part 17, subparagraph 4, subparagraph BB shall be referred to as “BB”.

(11) Part 18, the following shall be added to attached Form 3:

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

(c)