beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 15, 2010, C entered into a construction agreement with the Defendant on the construction cost of KRW 9,1850,000 (excluding value-added tax) with respect to the construction work in the e-book D located in Gwangju-si, and completed the construction work up to KRW 9,2750,000,000 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”). At that time, the Defendant also paid the construction cost of KRW 9,2755,00 to C, including the additional construction work.
B. After that, F Co., Ltd., a representative of C, received a decision of omitting sales, along with a penalty surcharge equivalent to KRW 200 million on December 5, 2013, as a result of the tax investigation on the portion of sales in 2012, and C, on April 19, 2014, on the premise that there was a claim equivalent to value-added tax against the Defendant, C transferred the said claim to the Plaintiff and notified the Defendant of the transfer on May 9, 2014.
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleading
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. At the time of the instant construction contract, the Defendant and C agreed to suspend the payment of value-added tax on the instant construction contract, and the Defendant agreed to bear the burden of value-added tax in the event of an inevitable cause that occurs later (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and accordingly, the Defendant paid only the construction cost excluding value-added tax to the Plaintiff.
B. However, as a result of the investigation of value-added tax, the omission of sales was confirmed and thus, the penalty was imposed on C. This constitutes grounds for the burden of value-added tax under the instant agreement, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay value-added tax to C.
C. In addition, the instant agreement is an agreement to evade taxes and has no effect contrary to good morals and other social order, and therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the value-added tax, the payment of which was deferred between C and C.
Therefore, the defendant has a claim equivalent to the above value-added tax against the defendant C.