The dispute on the construction price shall not affect the initial time of supply due to the defects;

As long as the construction of this case has been completed and has been approved for use, the dispute on the settlement of construction price is only an issue concerning defects, so it does not constitute a case where the value of supply at the time of completion of the provision of

Article 16 of the former Value-Added Tax Act [Time of Supply for Services]

2017Guhap5162 Demanding revocation of a disposition of refusal to confirm the fact of transactions

@@@

00. Head of tax office

September 1, 2017

September 29, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

[Attachment 1] With respect to construction works listed in the list, the defendant's refusal to confirm the fact of transactions is revoked 20***.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff entered into a contract with the H General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "H General Construction") to contract for the construction of the Seoul***Gu** Dong********-**-****00,000 (excluding value-added tax), the date of commencement of the construction work *** *.* *.* *. *. *. *. *. *. the completion date of the construction work * *.* *. *. *. *. *. *. 1/1,00, the interest rate for delay, 1/1,000, and 00, and the balance except the down payment and the progress payment was agreed to pay within one month after the completion of the construction work (hereinafter referred to as the "the contract of this case").

B. As to the instant construction project, approval for use was made*. However, the Plaintiff paid only the remainder after subtracting the construction balance**,00,000,000, and value-added tax*,00,000, from the date of**.

(c) H General Construction has filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff seeking payment of the balance and additional construction costs and damages for delay (***** District Court 2012da******), an appellate court (** high court ** 2014Na*********) on the H General Construction*****,******,*************************************** on the End General Construction?********* on the End General Construction****** on the additional construction cost********,00,000 + on the additional construction cost************** on the compensation for delay**** on the **** on the 121.21.**** on the **** on the 21.21.*** and the above judgment on the *******.21.

(d) The plaintiff has made an application for confirmation of the fact of transaction (for issuance of purchaser-issued tax) to the defendant (see Article 126-4 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 14390, Dec. 20, 2016)**********,**,******** in total*,***,**** in number********,**** in number******?* in number*******??.* in number******* in number************? in number***********? in number******? in the case of issuance** in the case of the purchaser-issued after the lapse of supply period confirmed by the supplier?* in the case of the plaintiff** in the part of the disposition of rejection*** in the part of the sale**** 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Related statutes;

[Attachment 2] The entry is as specified in the relevant statutes.

3. Whether the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since there was a dispute between the Plaintiff and HD Construction with respect to the cost of construction services, the payment has become final and conclusive only by the Supreme Court Decision*****,00,00, the time of supply for services in the part of the Corporation***,00,000, the date of the decision of the Supreme Court,**, 2015, the date of the decision of the Supreme Court,**. The Plaintiff’s application for confirmation of the fact of transaction was made within three months from then [see Article 121-4(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27848, Feb. 7, 2017)], the balance of the Corporation ****,00,000, the time of supply for services in the part of the Corporation ***,000, the date of approval for the use of the instant disposition should be revoked under the premise that the instant disposition of refusal was unlawful **.

B. Determination

Article 9(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same) sets the time of supply for services, etc. as the time of supply for such services, and sets the necessary matters concerning the time of supply under paragraph (4). Article 22 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24638, Jun. 28, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that in the case of ordinary supply, the term "when the provision of services is completed" (Article 1); "in the case of the supply of services under the standard payment, interim payment, long-term installment or other conditions or on a condition, where the supply unit is continuously impossible, the term "when the provision of services is completed and the supply price is determined" (Article 3). "In the case where the supply time of services is not determined upon the completion of the supply of services, the term of supply for such services can be determined upon the arrival of the contract between the service operators."

The instant construction services for which the payment of the remainder of the construction cost is to be made within one month after the completion of the construction work falls under Article 22 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act as the ordinary supply of services for which the supply price becomes fixed at the time of the completion of the construction work. ****,00,000, the time of supply for the services of which the provision of services is completed *****, the date of approval for use of the instant construction, the date of which the provision of services is completed, **. As long as the instant construction is completed after the completion of the construction work under the condition that the construction cost was determined upon the completion of the construction work under the instant contract, as seen earlier between the Plaintiff and H General Construction, disputes over the settlement of construction cost were filed and the judgment thereof became final and conclusive, even if the amount to be paid to H General Construction becomes final and conclusive after the completion of the construction work, this cannot be accepted* the Plaintiff’s request for the provision of services under Article 22 subparag. 201 of the former Value-Added Tax Act* the Plaintiff’s request for the completion of the construction work**

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.