Daejeon District Court 201Guhap4017 (2012.04.04)

Cho High 201.0495 (Law No. 111.06.29)

Where a building is repaid by substitute, the time of supply for the building shall be deemed to be the time when the building is available.

According to the contents of the contract, the reconstruction association paid the whole apartment unit to the contractor with the construction cost, and the time of supply for the building shall be deemed to be the time when the building is available, so the initial taxation is legitimate.

2012Nu889 Global Income and Revocation of Disposition

right XX

The Director of Budget Office

Daejeon District Court Decision 201Guhap4017 Decided April 4, 2012

August 23, 2012

September 13, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of a total of KRW 000 won of global income tax and penalty tax of KRW 000,000, which reverts to the plaintiff in 2008.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following: (a) the reasoning for this case is stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) the same is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

◆ 고쳐 쓰는 부분

3) As to the assertion that the reported income amount of the instant association was erroneous

A) On December 31, 2008, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant association should not be appropriated for sales in 2008, since there are 9 units of inventory assets unsold in lots in the instant association. According to the entry into a construction contract for a reconstruction project with an OO Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “OO Construction”), the instant association entered into a construction contract for a reconstruction project with an OO Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “OO Construction”), and set the method of business as the method of payment in kind for the land owned by the instant association. The specific contents are ① the instant association provided land owned by the instant association for O Construction and provided incidental facilities and welfare facilities built in return for such provision from OO Construction; ② the remaining construction facilities that were sold in lots to the association members are appropriated for the construction cost of the instant building; ③ the general sales revenue is appropriated for the construction cost of the instant O Construction; ③ The association appears to be capable of disposing of the entire construction cost of the instant apartment units and welfare facilities by the date of sale in lots under Article 24 of the instant association.

B) In addition, as to the different arguments of the Plaintiff, most of the evidence presented by the Plaintiff was unilaterally presented to the Plaintiff’s assertion or opinion by the document prepared by the Plaintiff, and it is not evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion, and other evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the reported income of the instant association was erroneous. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit, as there is no other evidence to acknowledge

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.