The time of the supply of services subject to interim payments is the time agreed to pay the construction cost, and the time of supply for services without relation to the actual payment of the price.

Where services are supplied under interim payment terms, the obligation to pay value-added taxes is established upon the arrival of the time of supply for each portion of the price, and whether the price has been paid is irrelevant to the establishment of the liability to pay value-added taxes. As such, the time of supply for the services, regardless of whether the Plaintiff is liable to pay the price when the Plaintiff receives the price. Therefore, the instant tax invoice is not true.

2013 disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax

AAA

Head of △ District Office

November 22, 2013

December 13, 2013

1. On February 8, 2012, the Defendant revoked the imposition of value-added tax OOOO(including additional tax OOOO) on the Plaintiff for the business year of 2009.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 31, 2009, the Plaintiff received materials purchase price and down payment (supply price) from BB construction in relation to the construction of a building on a scale of 2,138 square meters on the OO-Eup OO-type 271-22,138 square meters, and reported input tax amount after deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount when filing a return of the second value-added tax in 2009." (b) The head of the Kimhae-si Tax Office conducted a tax offense investigation on BB construction. As a result, the instant tax invoice was issued without the fact that the Plaintiff paid OOO tax to BB construction in terms of material purchase price and total amount, and that the BB construction did not provide the Plaintiff with construction services, and notified the Defendant of such fact by determining that it constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact.

C. On February 8, 2012, on the ground that the instant tax invoice was issued without payment of the price and providing the service, the Defendant rendered a disposition imposing OOO(including additional OOO(including additional tax) on the Plaintiff in 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on August 22, 2012, and the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on November 2, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 5, 6, 14 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant construction contract entered into between the Plaintiff and BB Construction is at least six months from the date of the payment of the down payment to the date of the remainder payment, and is paid in installments not less than two times. Thus, the instant tax invoice issued and issued on December 31, 2009, which is the time when the payment of the down payment was made in installments regardless of whether the payment was received, is unlawful in the instant disposition, since the instant tax invoice issued and issued on December 31, 2009, which is the time when the payment of the down payment was made in installments. In addition, the Plaintiff paid the construction price to BB Construction, and the BB Construction also provided the Plaintiff with the construction service, and thus, the instant

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of Gap's evidence 3 through 20, Gap's evidence 37, 42, 47, Eul's evidence 5, 6, 7, and 21, and witness fishCC's testimony as a whole.

1) Building permission, etc.

A) The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land on March 23, 2009, and selected D Construction Co., Ltd. as a construction company around June 2009 in order to newly construct a main complex building with the second and nine floors above the ground on that ground, and received construction permission from the Yangsan market.

B) On July 23, 2009, DD Construction received a proper notification from the Yangsan market on the plan to prevent harm and danger, and paid the deposit for construction work safety management with EE Guarantee Insurance, and purchased the Class 1 national housing bonds.

C) The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the BB Construction on November 17, 2009 and changed the contractor to BB Construction.

2) Construction contracts, etc. between the Plaintiff and BB Construction

“A) The standard contract for private construction works of this case, dated November 17, 2009, drafted between the Plaintiff and BB Construction, shall begin on September 1, 2009.

On December 30, 2010

The contract price OOO(Additional No. 3) is written as the contract price director(Additional No. 500), and the contract terms and conditions set out on the same day are as follows: Cash OO(Additional No. 300,000,000,000 won for construction costs, and the aggregate of OOO(Additional No. 30

The cash portion in the payment method for progress payment shall be the OOO(Additional Tax) for the purchase price of materials on December 31, 2009, the OOOOO(Additional Tax), the OOOOO(Additional Tax Table), and the OOO(Additional Tax Table) within two months after completion.

b) The Plaintiff was issued the instant tax invoice to the effect that the Plaintiff received the total amount of OO(including value-added tax OO(including value-added tax OOO(s) from BB construction on November 19, 2009 to December 30, 2009, and that the Plaintiff received the total amount of OO(s) from BB construction on December 31, 2009.

C) After that, from January 5, 2010 to March 8, 2010, the Plaintiff paid the total sum of the construction cost to BB construction.

D) BB Construction reported the value-added tax for the second period of 2009, and reported that the amount listed in the instant tax invoice was received within the taxable period.

(iii)payment of subcontracting and value-added taxes;

"A) BB Construction awarded a subcontract for underground civil engineering works and structure works among the instant construction works to FFto the FFto Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "FFto"), and BB construction and FFto the payment of OO to the FF to the FF to the OO to be made until December 31, 2009 out of the subcontract price." (B) Accordingly, FFto the sales to be received from BB construction on December 31, 2009 and paid the value-added tax corresponding thereto.

(iv) Current status of the construction site;

A) From November 2009, Franchi had a pentice installed at the construction site of this case, Franchis and carried them into the clock files and port bags after installing a site office.

B) Frather Frat ceased navigation due to underground base rocks, but around May 201, Frather finished the launch of underground base rocks and completed the launch file distribution.

C) On February 2010, the title of investigation prepared by the employee affiliated with the Defendant’s employee on February 2010, the owner of the said new construction works is identified as the owner of the building (GG) and is also identified as the actual construction works, such as the attached building permit, the contract, and the construction specifications related to new construction works.

D. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice written differently from the fact

A) Article 9(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2003, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that the time when the service is supplied is the time when the service is supplied or the goods, facilities, or rights are used. Article 9(3) provides that where the entrepreneur receives all or part of the price for the goods or services before the time prescribed in paragraph (2) comes into existence, and at the same time a tax invoice or receipt is issued for the said price, the time when the service is supplied shall be deemed the time of supply for the goods or services, respectively. Article 22(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22003, Jan. 27, 2010) provides that where the service is supplied on a base, interim, long-term, or other conditional basis, or where the service is continuously supplied on a basis that makes it possible to pay the down payment for the goods or services on a condition that the service is supplied on or before the expiration of the supply period.

B) According to the instant construction contract, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the construction cost in installments on four occasions in addition to the agreement to pay the cost of purchasing materials to BB Construction on December 31, 2009, and the OOOO of the substitute part agreed to pay the cost within one month from December 30, 2010, the completion date of the instant construction contract. As such, the instant construction contract constitutes a case where the payment is made in installments prior to the completion date of the service, other than the down payment, and the period from the payment date of the down payment to the payment date of the remainder is not less than six months and constitutes a case where the service is provided upon interim payment under Article 9(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act.

In addition, in the event that services are supplied upon interim payment terms, even if the goods are not completed at a rate equivalent to each price, the time of supply arrives and the value-added tax liability is established at the time of receiving each portion of the price, barring any circumstances under which the contract loses its validity due to cancellation or termination, etc. In addition, the issue of whether the payment is actually made shall not affect the conclusion of the liability for value-added tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du3089, Nov. 28, 2003). Thus, the time of supply for the services at December 31, 2009, when the Plaintiff agreed to pay the cost of materials purchase to BB construction to pay the cost of materials purchase to the Plaintiff without relation to the actual payment of the cost of materials purchase. Accordingly, the tax invoice of this case issued by BB construction to the Plaintiff as the cost of supply cannot be deemed to constitute a tax invoice different from the fact. Therefore, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

2) Determination on the Defendant’s additional assertion of grounds for disposition

A) The Defendant added the grounds that the instant tax invoice received by the Plaintiff from BB Construction constitutes a case where the registration number of the recipient of the instant tax invoice constitutes a false entry in the essential entries, to the grounds for the instant disposition. According to the additional grounds for disposition, the instant disposition is eventually lawful.

However, in an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, from the perspective of the substantive rule of law and the trust protection of the people who are the other party to the administrative disposition, the agency can add or modify other reasons only to the extent that the basic factual relations are recognized identical to the original reason and the basic factual relations, and it is not allowed to make a claim for a disposition on the ground of separate facts not recognized as identical. The existence of the basic factual relations here is determined based on whether the social factual relations, which form the basis of the disposition, are identical in basic terms, based on the specific facts prior to the legal evaluation of the grounds for disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du8684, Sept. 28, 2001).

In light of the above legal principles, the reason why the defendant added the reason for disposition, that is, the registration number of the person to whom the tax invoice of this case was supplied, is different from the fact, is specific that the defendant used as the ground for the disposition of this case, that the plaintiff did not pay OO Won to BB Construction as material purchase price and down payment, and that BB Construction did not provide the plaintiff with the construction service, and that social factual relations do not basically be the same. Thus, the defendant added the reason for disposition during the course of the lawsuit of this case to be unlawful.

B) In addition, even if the disposition reason is lawful, the Plaintiff is registered as the owner of the building site of this case, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff received a building permit under his own name, and the construction contract between the construction company and the Plaintiff was also made in the name of the Plaintiff, the owner of the building of this case who is obligated to pay the construction price to BB construction merely because the Plaintiff was working or worked as the head of the management department of Kim II, the owner of the FF soil inspection, the owner of the building of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is not

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.