C&AD Co., Ltd. (Law Firm L&A, Attorneys Kang Chang-ok et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The director of Busan District Office

April 27, 2011

Busan District Court Decision 2010Guhap680 Decided July 16, 2010

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The decision of the first instance court shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of KRW 196,186,169 of corporate tax for the year 2003 against the plaintiff on September 1, 2008, the imposition of KRW 3,393,96,966,118 of corporate tax for the year 2004, the imposition of KRW 100,008,815 of corporate tax for the year 2004, the imposition of KRW 927,712,920 of corporate tax for the year 205, and the imposition of KRW 300,351,430 of corporate tax for

1. Details of imposition, etc.;

A. On January 17, 2006, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “C&D merger”) entered into a contract for construction of housing units, lease business, construction business, etc. (hereinafter “Treatment Construction”). On December 2, 2005, on the ground of Kimhae-si ( Address 1 omitted), Kimhae-si (hereinafter “No. 1”) with the construction period of construction from May 2, 2003 to January 2006 (33 months), with the total contract amount of KRW 88,071,030,000 (excluding value-added tax), with the construction period of KRW 20,000,000 on June 7, 2006, with each contract period of KRW 30,000 (hereinafter “No. 2,000), from May 2, 2003 to January 206, 206 to the contract period of each of the instant construction works (hereinafter “No. 46,206”).

B. The Plaintiff reported to the Defendant the corporate tax amount for the year 203 or 2007 by calculating the Plaintiff’s sales profit and loss according to the rate of work progress calculated by dividing it into total construction cost and the total construction cost separately incurred to the Plaintiff according to the terms and conditions of the payment of construction cost under each of the instant contract.

C. The Defendant does not recognize corporate tax for the year 203 through 206 due to each of the instant construction works reported by the Plaintiff, and calculated the cumulative total amount of construction expenses for the Si construction based on the aggregate amount of construction expenses separately incurred to the Plaintiff, and applied the corporate tax for the business year 203 or 2007, 209, 307 or 206, 207, 2005, 207, 2007, 306, 207, 207, 207, 207, 2005, 207, 2005, 207, 207, 2005, 306, 207, 2005, 205, 306, 207, 205, 306, 205, 306, 207, 2005, 2005, 2005, 2007.

D. The plaintiff is dissatisfied with each of the above dispositions and filed an appeal on November 13, 2008. The Tax Tribunal rejected the argument on the rate of work progress on November 25, 2009, and accepted the plaintiff's appeal on the number of days of non-payment of the non-payment of the non-payment of the penalty tax and partly accepted the plaintiff's appeal.

E. On December 14, 2009, according to the decision of the Tax Tribunal, the Defendant corrected corporate tax against the Plaintiff at KRW 196,186,169, KRW 3,93,966, KRW 118, KRW 927,712,920 in the business year 2004, KRW 3,393,966, and KRW 927,712,920 in the business year 2005, respectively, and notified the Defendant of the reduction (hereinafter referred to as the “each disposition of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 3, Gap evidence 2, 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The assertion that it is unlawful to calculate the tax base and tax amount for the event in applying the rate of work progress of the project

The rate of work progress in the event like the plaintiff cannot be applied as it is, and it is practically impossible to grasp in advance the cost information related to each of the construction works of this case since it is a kind of corporate secret and it is necessary to apply the rate of work progress to the contractor, it is necessary to separately calculate the total amount of construction cost of the contractor's company for which the obligation to pay for the relevant business year is finalized, such as its own labor cost and material cost, other incidental costs, and financial costs. Even according to each of the contracts of this case, the degree of work progress of treatment construction is not completely related to the plaintiff's obligation to pay the construction cost, so the construction cost paid to the contractor according to the principle of confirmation of rights and obligations should be deemed to be the total amount of construction cost of the plaintiff's business year in which the obligation to pay the construction cost is finalized. Considering the fact that it is practically impossible to grasp in advance the construction cost information related to each of the construction works of this case since it falls under a sort of corporate secret

(2) Claim on additional tax portion

Even if it is not so, the plaintiff decided the time of attribution of profit and loss on the basis of the rate of work progress of the plaintiff, which is an executor. This is not derived from the plaintiff's legal site, but from the conflicting opinion due to the significance of interpretation of the tax law on the issue of determining the time of attribution of profit and loss technical and difficult. Therefore, the plaintiff neglected his/her duty. Therefore, the part of additional tax 1,569,438,531 out of each disposition of this case is unlawful and should be revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The determination of the allegation that the calculation of the tax base and the amount of tax at the time of the event is unlawful by applying the rate of work progress

(A) Relevant provisions

1) Article 69(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19891, Feb. 28, 2007; hereinafter the same) and Article 34 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 547, Mar. 30, 2007; hereinafter the same) provide that “where the period from the start date of construction to the delivery date is not less than one year, the total amount of construction expenses incurred by the end of the pertinent business year shall be calculated by dividing the total amount of construction expenses incurred by the end of the pertinent business year by the total cost of construction, and the total estimated cost of construction shall be included in the calculation of earnings and losses for the pertinent business year, and the total estimated cost of construction shall be reasonably estimated as the estimated cost of construction project, reflecting the change in the situation by the end of the pertinent

2) Article 3 subparag. 3 of the Rules on Accounting of Construction Business provides that the total amount of construction cost incurred as of the balance sheet date and the expected construction cost shall be the expected construction cost, and Article 24 of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 7757 of Dec. 23, 2005) and Article 27 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19356 of Feb. 24, 2006) provide that the supervisor shall review and confirm whether the contractor has constructed the construction work in conformity with the design documents, the plan for construction, the schedule of construction, and the construction drawings, etc. shall be reported to the executor as the project owner.

(B) Determination

관계 법령의 규정 내용 및 갑 6, 7호증의 각 1, 2, 을 2호증의 각 기재, 제1심 증인 소외인의 일부 증언, 제1심의 주식회사 대우건설, 주식회사 아이티엠 코프레이션 건축사사무소, 주식회사 상지엔지니어링 건축사사무소에 대한 각 사실조회결과, 당심의 주식회사 대우건설에 대한 사실조회결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 법인세법 시행령이 1998. 12. 31. 전문개정되기 전에는 장기도급계약에 관하여 “건설 또는 제조에 관하여 계약기간이 1년 이상인 장기도급계약을 체결한 경우, 그 목적물의 건설 또는 제조의 착수일이 속하는 사업연도부터 그 목적물의 인도일이 속하는 사업연도까지의 각 사업연도의 손익은 재정경제부령이 정하는 바에 의하여 그 목적물의 건설 또는 제조를 완료한 정도를 기준으로 하여 계산한 수익과 비용을 당해 사업연도의 익금과 손금에 각각 산입한다. 다만, 그 목적물의 건설 또는 제조를 완료한 정도를 계산할 수 없다고 인정되는 경우로서 재정경제부령이 정하는 경우에는 그 목적물의 인도일이 속하는 사업연도의 익금과 손금에 각각 산입한다”고만 규정되어 있었으나{ 구 법인세법 시행령(1998. 12. 31. 대통령령 제15970호로 전문개정되기 전의 것) 제36조 제1항 제7호 }, 시행령이 전문개정되어 법인세법 시행령 제69조 로, 건설과 제조 외에 예약매출을 포함한 기타용역을 1년 이상의 기간으로 제공하는 경우에도, 건설이나 제조의 경우와 마찬가지로 목적물의 건설 또는 제조를 완료한 정도, 즉 작업진행률에 따라 손금과 익금의 귀속사업연도를 정하도록 규정하게 된 점, ② 아파트분양사업자가 장기간에 걸쳐 아파트를 건설하여 분양하는 것은 기업회계상 예약매출에 해당되는데, 위 시행령 제69조 가 제정되기 전에도 예약매출에 대하여는 “법인세법상 그 귀속시기를 명확히 규정한 바 없다 할 것이어서 기업회계기준의 공사진행기준에 의하여 손익을 분배하고 그 귀속을 정할 수도 있다 할 것이고, 또한 그렇게 한다 하여 법인세법상의 손익확정주의에 반한다고 할 수 없으며, 한편 위 기업회계기준상의 공사진행기준(공사진행률)이라 함은 당해 각 사업연도 투입원가가 전체예정원가(토지대금과 아파트건설도급금액의 합계액)에서 차지하는 비율을 가리키는 것이다{ 대법원 1992. 10. 23. 선고 92누2936, 2943(병합) 판결 참조}”라고 해석된 점, ③ 건설업회계처리준칙 제4조 제1항, 제5조 제1항은 도급공사 및 예약매출의 수익인식은 진행기준을 적용하되, 공사진행률은 공사예정원가에 대한 실제공사비의 발생비율로 하도록 규정하고 있고, 법인세법 시행령 제69조 제2항 및 법인세법 시행규칙 제34조 제1항 은 ‘작업진행률’을 목적물의 건설 등을 완료한 정도로 보고, 당해 사업연도 말까지 발생한 총공사비 누적액을 총공사예정비로 나누어 작업진행률을 산정하도록 규정하고 있는데, 시행사라 하여 위 각 규정과 다르게 도급약정에 따라 시공사에 대한 지급의무가 확정된 금액만을 포함하여 ‘작업진행률’을 산정할 수 있다고 해석할 수는 없는 점, ④ 피고가 총공사비 누적액을 계산할 때 작업진행률에 따라 계산한 시공사 총공사비뿐만 아니라 시행사인 원고가 별도로 지출한 총공사비도 포함하였으므로, 시행사의 작업진행률과 시공사의 작업진행률이 일치하지 않는다는 점만으로 이 사건 부과처분이 위법하다고 볼 수 없는 점, ⑤ 원고는 공사 원가에 대한 정보가 시공사의 영업비밀에 해당하여 시행사로서는 이를 사전에 파악하는 것이 사실상 불가능하다고 주장하나, 작업진행률을 계산할 때 필요한 ‘총공사예정비’는 도급금액에 기초하여 산정가능하고, ‘당해 사업연도 말까지 발생한 총공사비누적액’은, 원고가 감리자를 통해 시공사의 작업진행률을 보고받거나 공사도급 약정을 체결할 때 세무신고에 필요한 범위 내에서 작업진행률을 통지하도록 하는 조항을 둘 수 있다는 점에서 합리적으로 산정하는 것이 가능한 점, ⑥ 주택법 제24조 및 같은 법 시행령 제27조 에 의하면, 감리자는 시공자가 설계도서에 맞게 시공하였는지 여부, 시공계획·예정공정표 및 시공도면 등의 검토·확인 등을 사업주체인 시행사에 보고하여야 하므로, 시행사는 시공사의 작업진행률 등을 알 수 있는 위치에 있는 점, ⑦ 원고 주장과 같이 대우건설의 도급공사비 누적액 중 도급약정에 따라 당해 사업연도에 지급의무가 확정된 금액만 ‘총공사비누적액’에 반영한다면, 당사자 간 약정에 따라, 건설 등의 계약기간이 1년 이상인 경우 목적물의 건설을 완료한 정도에 따라 수익과 비용을 산입하도록 한 법인세법의 취지를 왜곡할 수도 있다는 점 등을 종합적으로 고려하면, 이 사건에서 대우건설의 작업진행률을 기준으로 시공사공사비를 계산하고 여기에 시행사인 원고가 별도로 지출한 공사비를 합하여 ‘총공사비누적액’을 산정하고, 여기에 총공사예정비를 나누어 작업진행률을 산정한 다음 이를 기초로 계산한 수익과 비용을 기준으로 법인세를 부과하는 것은 적법하다.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(2) Determination on the assertion related to penalty tax

(A) Under the tax law, where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a tax return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, an additional tax is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the tax law, and the taxpayer’s intention or negligence is not considered, and where there is a justifiable reason not to be attributable to the taxpayer’s failure to perform the duty, such as where it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to fulfill the duty, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du930, Nov. 25, 2005, etc.).

(B) In light of the above legal principles, since it is possible to reasonably grasp the method of calculating the working progress rate as above in the relevant laws and regulations, it is difficult to deem that there is a justifiable reason that the Plaintiff, the taxpayer, was unable to cause the Plaintiff’s negligence of neglecting the corporate tax base and neglecting the payment of corporate tax. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Jeong-young (Presiding Judge)