beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the value-added tax amounting to KRW 73,215,500 against the defendant is modified as follows.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 23, 2005, the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City consisting of the instant promotion committee designated and publicly announced a total of 31,924.10 square meters of 218 square meters outside Gangseo-gu, Seoul as a housing reconstruction improvement zone (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”) pursuant to Article 4 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 8785, Dec. 21, 2007; hereinafter “former Urban Improvement Act”), and set the supply ratio of rental housing as “25% of the increased floor area ratio”.
B. (1) On December 8, 2005, the chairperson C of the Plaintiff’s Promotion Committee for the Establishment of the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a service contract (hereinafter “the instant primary contract”) with the content that the Defendant entrusts the specialized management of the rearrangement project pursuant to the implementation of the Housing Reconstruction Improvement Project to the Defendant at KRW 745,800,000 for the service cost (excluding value-added tax).
B. The Plaintiff provided services as stipulated in the first contract of this case to the Plaintiff, on August 1, 2007.
Article 742,498,020 won in total from November 6, 2007 to March 13, 2008 (i.e., value of supply of KRW 674,998,200, value of value of value of KRW 67,499,820) was paid to the Defendant as service payment under the instant first contract.
C. (1) On January 29, 2008, the Plaintiff’s president C and the Defendant are “the instant secondary contract” with the content that the Plaintiff entrusted the Defendant with the business of reducing the supply rate of rental apartments.
(B) In conclusion, 8% (in addition to value-added tax) of the total amount of union profits generated from the reduction in the supply rate of rental housing shall be the value-added tax, and if no profit has arisen due to the reduction in the supply rate of rental housing, the full down payment that the Defendant received