Daegu District Court 2017Guhap21854 ( April 11, 2018)

Determination on the completion of the supply time under the Value-Added Tax Act of the service of this case on attorney fees

Since both the time of supply of services and the time of income under the Income Tax Act for attorney fees of this case are completed, the disposition of this case is legitimate.

Article 9 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2018Nu2989 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition, such as Value-Added Tax

AA

BB

National Rotations

December 21, 2018

January 18, 2010

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of KRW 82,048,580 on September 5, 2016 against the plaintiff on September 5, 2016 and global income tax of KRW 270,418,210 on global income for the year 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff, as an attorney-at-law belonging to the 00 local bar association, established a law office from November 7, 2005 and operated an attorney-at-law business, and the CC General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'CC-type case') provided services, is a construction company with a claim for construction cost in relation to DDR and 77 lots of land (hereinafter referred to as 'real estate' in total of the above land and buildings) at 00:0: 00 and 74, and 17, and the above land and buildings (hereinafter referred to as 'DDR-type building' in this case) for DDR-type 200,000 and 7.

C. According to the circumstances where, even after the above decisions became final and conclusive, it was difficult to pay the attorney’s fees to the Plaintiff due to the failure to receive the construction cost from the DDR, the instant real estate was held in the auction procedure, and the agreement in the name of a person eligible to receive a loan for the auction cost.

F. F.F. (Joint and Several Guarantee...................................................

1. The objective of this Arrangement is to enter into an agreement with respect to the rights and obligations of the entire process during which ownership is transferred to a person B or B by purchasing in F name the real estate (the instant real estate) owned at 00 :0 00 occ.

2. A shall raise the auction proceeds under his/her responsibility and transfer the ownership under his/her name after transferring the ownership, and B shall transfer the ownership to a person designated by B or B, and B shall notify the person to be transferred and the person to be transferred within three months from the date the Party A paid the auction proceeds;

3. A shall procure an auction bond and participate in an auction on his own responsibility, provide real estate purchased in the name of B as security, and pay the balance of the auction by receiving the loan. The loan shall be paid to B after deducting all kinds of taxes and public charges, such as KRW A, various taxes and certified judicial scrivener fees owned in the name of B, property tax incurred during the transfer to B, transfer income tax incurred in the process of transfer to B (hereinafter referred to as “operating funds”) from the above loan, interest arising from the procurement of auction proceeds and auction proceeds, contingent fees to attorneys, etc.

4. A and B shall make their best efforts to raise the various costs listed in paragraph 3 above, in addition to the auction proceeds, and they have completed the registration of ownership transfer on the part of B after each of the above costs has been procured and paid, but they tried to recover the above winning price, etc. by receiving a successful bid for the light real estate not being procured even after the lapse of three months from the date of payment of the remainder of auction proceeds.

D. On December 15, 201, CCTV Co., Ltd. entered into an agreement with FF (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiff”) that actually represented the Plaintiff on December 15, 201, on the following grounds: (a) procured auction costs in the Plaintiff’s side and won the bid for the instant real estate, and subsequently obtained the bid for the relevant expenses and the attorney’s fees incurred from each of the instant lawsuits; and (b) concluded the agreement that will complete the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”). The main contents are as follows.

all or part of the purchased real estate shall be disposed of and the remaining money shall be delivered to B after deducting all of the above expenses first.

5. Eul shall complete the registration of ownership transfer to a person designated by Eul or Eul within three months from the date on which Gap paid the remainder of auction, and shall change the debtor on the registration of ownership transfer to a person designated by Eul or Eul on the register of ownership transfer following a loan of auction proceeds.

6. Eul shall, in receiving a loan for auction proceeds and operating funds, etc. on real estate as security, deliver to Gap a letter of waiver of lien from all creditors who exercise a lien on real estate subject to auction to Gap, and actively cooperate so as not to impede Gap in receiving the loan.

E. The plaintiff's side raised auction costs in accordance with the agreement of this case, and as to the real estate of this case

After receiving a successful tender in the auction procedure for movable property and completing the registration of ownership transfer in F’s name on February 14, 2012, the right to collateral security with a maximum amount of 4.2 billion won on July 31, 2012

The loan of this case is 3.5 billion won (hereinafter referred to as "the loan of this case") after completing the registration of establishment and completing it from 00 livestock cooperatives.

(1) 50 million won of the instant loan (hereinafter referred to as “the instant remuneration”) was loaned.

On August 2, 2012 and August 3, 2012, and August 30, 2012, deposited into the Plaintiff’s account at least three times on August 30, 2012.

F. The Defendant reported value added tax for the second period of 2012 by the Plaintiff, and the business in 2012.

On September 5, 2016, the Plaintiff issued a revised notice of KRW 82,048,580, and KRW 270,418,210, respectively, of global income tax for the year 2012 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "each of the instant dispositions") to the Plaintiff on September 5, 2016.

G. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 7, 2016, but tax was imposed.

The Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's request on March 15, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 9 (including household numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Nos. 1 through 5

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s CC case’s remuneration claim (hereinafter “instant remuneration claim”) as stipulated in the instant agreement

In addition to the remuneration for the execution of each lawsuit in this case, 50 million won includes the remuneration for financing, auction, etc. under the agreement in this case (hereinafter referred to as "auction services in this case"). However, the plaintiff still transferred the registration of ownership transfer concerning the real estate in this case toCC type, disposed of it, and failed to pay the remaining surplus after appropriating it for expenses, so the plaintiff did not complete the provision of auction services in this case.

The loan of this case is created by the plaintiff's side in the course of performing the auction service of this case.

Of them, the transfer of KRW 500 million to the Plaintiff’s account is merely a separate custody to prepare for provisional seizure against the claim of a third party against the FF’s account. Thus, this does not mean that the Plaintiff received the instant remuneration claim from CCTV case.

CC-type case did not have the ability to pay the expenses required for the auction service of this case or the Plaintiff’s remuneration from the beginning. Loans secured by the real estate of this case are not sufficient to deduct various expenses. At present, the expenses for the possession and management of the real estate of this case borne by the Plaintiff are continuously increasing. Accordingly, the remuneration claim of this case is not highly feasible.

Therefore, since the time of supply and the time of income under the Value-Added Tax Act for the instant remuneration claim have not yet arrived, each of the dispositions of this case on different premise should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

C. Determination

1) The nature of the instant auction service and the instant remuneration claim

In full view of the following circumstances revealed through the facts acknowledged as above, quoted evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant arrangement was actually concluded between the Plaintiff andCC-type. The Plaintiff, through the instant agreement, had been paid KRW 500 million fromCC-type in return for providing each lawsuit of this case and the auction service of this case, and received KRW 500 million from the instant loan incurred in the course of providing the auction service of this case delegated byCC-type pursuant to the agreement. Accordingly, among the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part, “the instant remuneration” was separately stored the instant loan, which is the money on the part of the Plaintiff, in order to prepare for provisional seizure against FF’s accounts, and was not paid as the instant remuneration claim.”

① CC-type case, when exercising the right of retention on the instant real estate, failed to recover the claim for the construction cost of DDR and to pay the Plaintiff the litigation fee. In order to recover the construction cost by receiving a successful bid for the instant real estate, the Plaintiff delegated the auction service of this case to the Plaintiff in addition to the execution of each instant lawsuit.

② While the Plaintiff was unable to receive the instant fees by the time of the instant agreement, the Plaintiff entered into the instant agreement with the CC case by stating the F, the chief legal officer of the CC, as the contractual title, and as the joint guarantor, as the form of the contract, the CC case entered into the instant agreement between the F, which is the chief of the CC’s legal office, and as the CC case’s joint guarantor. Article 3(3) of the instant agreement states that the amount of 500 million won is the CC’s fee for attorney-at-law. Furthermore, considering the fact that the instant agreement does not include any provision on the F’s fees, the CC case’s attorney-at-law, who was requested to provide the instant auction service from the CC case, may not exclude the Plaintiff from the delegated agent.

③ In addition, in light of the fact that the instant agreement was concluded after several months after the conclusion of the judgments on each of the instant lawsuits, and the fact that the instant agreement was concluded in addition to the amount of remuneration for each of the instant lawsuits, i.e., the term “sexual public fee, etc.” as stated in the instant agreement, it appears that the Plaintiff andCC case were included in consideration of the fact that the time for payment of the instant remuneration claim is connected with the provision of the instant auction service, and that 500 million won of the instant remuneration claim is merely excessive in consideration of the value of the instant lawsuit, the circumstance of the instant case’s acceptance, and the progress and degree of the case, etc., the considerable portion of the instant remuneration claim is deemed to have been paid in consideration of the Plaintiff’s provision of the instant auction service toCC case.

④ According to the evidence evidence Nos. 9 through 11, on September 30, 2013,CC case filed a lawsuit against F, a title holder of the instant real estate, seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration under the instant agreement (00 district court 00Da2013hap00, hereinafter “related civil lawsuit”). The Plaintiff, through the preparatory documents, etc. submitted by F, as a F’s legal representative in the instant case, won of the instant remuneration. The Plaintiff won the auction expenses on behalf of F, etc., and won the Plaintiff won the auction expenses in full under the name of F, and acquired the ownership of the instant real estate and acquired the bid for the instant auction service, thereby obtaining the payment of the instant remuneration claim No. 500 million won fromCC case in return for the implementation of each of the instant litigation and the provision of the auction service.

2) Whether the provision of services is completed and whether the instant remuneration claim is confirmed

A) Relevant statutes and relevant legal principles

○ Article 9(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that “when a service is provided or goods, facilities, or rights are used” and the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 28, 2013) (Presidential Decree

Article 22 Subparag. 1 of the Income Tax Act provides, “Where the provision of services is completed in the case of ordinary supply” (wholly amended by Act No. 24638; hereinafter the same). Meanwhile, Article 39(1) of the Income Tax Act provides, “The year to which total income and necessary expenses of a resident are reverted shall be the taxable period in which the total income and necessary expenses are determined,” and Article 48 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides, “The date of receipt of business income shall be the date on which the payment of the consideration is made or the date on which the provision of services is completed

Article 9 (2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides "when the service is provided", and Article 22 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act upon delegation under paragraph (4) provides "when the provision of service is completed in the case of ordinary supply (Article 1)", etc. as the time of supply for the specific service.

The term "when the provision of service is completed" refers to the time when a person who receives the service by the actual provision of service can use the computation of the provision of service, taking into account the scope of the provision of service under a contract between a trader and the contractual terms and conditions, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du2291, Jun. 11, 2015).

The principle of confirmation of a right, which is the principle of determining the time of attribution of income under the Income Tax Act, is based on the time when a right, which is a transaction that is a cause of income, accrues when there is time interval between the time when a right, which is not the time when income is realized and the time when income is realized. The method of calculating income for the pertinent year is to allow a prior taxation on an uncertain income under the premise that it is realized in the future. It is significant to prevent a taxpayer from sustaining a taxable year’s income. Even if it is not necessary until the income is realized in reality, in order to realize such income, even if the income is not necessary until it is realized, the right to generate income should be considerably mature and confirmed in light of the possibility of realizing it, and therefore, it cannot be said that there is a income generated. In this context, the issue of whether a right to generate income is mature or finalized cannot be uniformly determined by comprehensively taking into account the nature of each individual right, the substance of the right, and various matters of the law and fact-finding (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du262727).

B) the facts of recognition

(1) The Plaintiff entered into the instant agreement with CCTV case. After the Plaintiff procured priority costs and awarded the bid for the instant real estate, the Plaintiff agreed to transfer the ownership of the instant real estate from the money loaned as security, to the Plaintiff’s auction proceeds, interest thereon, various taxes and certified judicial scrivener fees, property tax incurred during the Plaintiff’s possession, capital gains tax, etc. generated in the process of transferring the instant real estate to CCTV, and to the Plaintiff’s attorney fees for each of the instant lawsuits and the instant auction services, and to the amount of KRW 500 million. The Plaintiff agreed to transfer the ownership transfer registration for the instant real estate to CCTV case.

(2) The Plaintiff’s side 364,400,000 won borrowed from H on December 12, 2011

Amount of Date Expenditure

February 14, 2012 1,457,600,000

Interest in arrears on February 14, 2012 20,765,808

In February 14, 2012, registration fees and fees for certified judicial scrivener fees 10,038,273

February 14, 2012: acquisition tax and registration tax 83,812,00

on February 14, 2012, 175,000 No. 175,00

Total 1,572,391,081

In the name of FF, he/she paid as a bid bond and received a successful bid by participating in the discretionary auction procedure for the instant real estate in the name of F (13,682,93,800 won, successful bid price of 1,82,00,000 won, and 26 December 26, 2011

The court received the decision to permit the sale of such securities.

(3) On February 14, 2012, the Plaintiff borrowed additional KRW 120,00,000 from H, and completed the registration of the ownership transfer in the FF on the same day with respect to the instant real estate, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 1.5 billion from the obligor FF, the maximum debt amount of KRW 1,950,000,000, and appropriated the auction balance of KRW 1,457,60,000,000, and the interest for arrears of KRW 20,765,80,000,000 for the remainder of auction.

(4) On July 31, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a superficies of KRW 000, the debtor corporation, the maximum debt amount of KRW 4,200,000,000, and the registration of the creation of a superficies of KRW 3.5 billion for the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 30,000,00 for the instant real estate. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 3.5 billion from the 00,000, and subsequently incurred all of the loans to HH and 00, as indicated in paragraph (3) of the instant arrangement. As a result, the loan balance of the instant loan amount of KRW 894,36,536 (i.e., the loan amount of KRW 3,50,000,00 for the instant loan amount of KRW 3,50,000 for the instant loan amount

Results of Date

July 31, 2012 15,081,500

on July 31, 2012 1,542,45,934 of the principal and interest of the Nonghyup 000

The repayment of principal and interest of H on August 2, 2012 535,475,000

August 2, 2012

August 3, 2012

August 30, 2012

The instant remuneration for the Plaintiff 500,000,000

on August 3, 2012 12,621,030

Total 2,605,633,464

2,605,633,464) remaining.

(5) A transfer income tax expected at that time when the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate under F’s name was completed under the name ofCC type shall be approximately 859,861,155 won [=transfer value + KRW 3,500,000 + KRW 1,936,616,081 won for the transfer price + Auction deposit + KRW 1,478,365,368,808 + Registration cost + KRW 10,038,273 + KRW 83,812,000 for acquisition tax and registration tax + KRW 55% for the transfer income tax + KRW 50% for the transfer income tax claimed by the Plaintiff [3,50,000 for the transfer value + KRW 3,500,000 for the transfer income tax claimed by the Plaintiff [3,500,000 for the transfer value + KRW 800,00 for the sale price and interest interest + KRW 1,407.2010]

(6) However, the Plaintiff did not transfer the ownership of the instant real estate toCC as a wind that did not pay the Plaintiff’s expense to the Plaintiff or discharge the obligation of the instant loan, and accordingly, the Plaintiff increased the use of the instant real estate owned and managed by the Plaintiff. On September 30, 2013,CC case filed a civil suit against FF for requesting the implementation of the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate, but on August 26, 2015, the lower court rejected the instant judgment on the ground that “F incurred additional expenses from the lower court until July 8, 2015, including KRW 3,986,60,609,719, which was the closing date of the appellate trial, and that the loan was not finalized by the lower court on the ground that it did not receive KRW 3,750,500,000,000 from the loan up to the time (i.e., KRW 3,500,000,000).

(7) As to the instant real property, the maximum debt amount on July 31, 2012 4,200,000,000

Even after the establishment of the first priority mortgage creation registration (the loan obligation of this case) was established on October 8, 2014, the following: (a) the registration of the establishment of the second priority mortgage (the maximum debt amount) by the mortgagee on October 8, 2014; (b) the registration of the establishment of the second priority mortgage; (c) the maximum debt amount by the mortgagee on December 15, 2015; (d) the registration of the establishment of the third priority mortgage (the maximum debt amount by the mortgagee on December 15, 2015; (e) the registration of the establishment of the third priority mortgage; (d) the maximum debt amount by the mortgagee on October 6, 2016; (e) the fourth priority mortgage establishment registration by the mortgagee on October 300, 200; and (e) the trustee on October 31, 2018.

New real estate trust, beneficiary V agricultural cooperatives, trust principal value of 7,156,093,280 won, beneficiary benefit certificate

Pursuant to the trust of KRW 4,200,000,000, the transfer registration of ownership is made; and the above amount is 1 to 200

The registration of creation of collateral security was cancelled all.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 8 through 12, Eul evidence 3 and 4, before oral pleadings

The purpose of body

C) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances revealed through the facts acknowledged as above, quoted evidence, and the purport of the entire pleading, it is reasonable to view that the time when the Plaintiff supplied the service under the Value-Added Tax Act, which serves as the basis of each of the dispositions of this case, and the time when the Plaintiff received the service of this case and the business income under the Income Tax Act, have arrived at all of the time when the Plaintiff received the service of this case and the business income under the Income Tax Act, which served as the basis of the respective dispositions of this case, after obtaining the loan of this case as a collateral.

Therefore, each disposition of this case based on this is lawful, and the part of the plaintiff's assertion on this part (in particular, it cannot be deemed that the time of supply of services under the Value-Added Tax Act and the time of receipt of business income under the Income Tax Act have arrived until the remaining surplus is paid after transferring the registration of transfer of ownership on the real estate of this case toCC case and disposing of the real estate of this case after appropriating for expenses) is not acceptable.

① According to the instant agreement, the Plaintiff’s service that the Plaintiff is obliged to provide toCC-type building is to acquire the loan obligation due to a change in the debtor’s name, etc. of the instant real estate, and deliver it to the Plaintiff by obtaining a letter of waiver of lien from the lien holder on the instant real estate to the Plaintiff after deducting various expenses as stipulated in paragraph (3) of the instant agreement from the money that the Plaintiff secured for the instant real estate, and deducting various expenses as stipulated in paragraph (3) of the instant agreement. On the other hand, under the instant agreement,CC-type has the obligation to procure various expenses as stipulated in paragraph (3) of the instant agreement.

② The Plaintiff, around July 31, 2012, was awarded the bid price for the instant real estate by raising its cost and receiving a loan of KRW 3.5 billion from the Plaintiff as collateral, and could deduct or deduct various expenses stipulated in paragraph (3) of the instant arrangement, as seen below, and thus, if onlyCC-type obligations were performed at the time, the Plaintiff could transfer the surplus and the instant real estate toCC-type. However, not only did the Plaintiff failed to make the best effort to raise expenses due to various circumstances, but also did not make the Plaintiff’s repayment to the Plaintiff within three months from the payment date of the auction-type balance, or failed to take over the loan obligations from the Plaintiff’s side for the instant real estate, but also did not grant the surplus or transfer the ownership toCC-type ownership from the Plaintiff’s side.

③ The judgment of the pertinent civil procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 00 High Court Decision 2014Na0000, Aug. 26, 2015) that requested the Plaintiff to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer of the instant real estate against the Plaintiff’s side rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for CC type to the effect that “CC type case did not repay the Plaintiff’s expenses or have not assumed the obligation of the instant loan, etc. with exemption from liability,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive upon dismissal of the final appeal by the CC type.

④ Meanwhile, in the instant case, the difference between the amount of the instant loan and the expected amount of capital gains tax, and the aggregate of various expenses until the time, including the amount of the instant loan and the expected amount of the capital gains tax, the amount of the initial construction cost, the appraisal price, the amount of the maximum debt amount, the amount of the actual secured loan, the amount of the trust value, etc. established after the successful bid, and the Plaintiff caused the occurrence of the occurrence of a loss within three months from the date of payment of the remainder of the auction ( February 14, 2012

(2) If the reserve funds for expenses are not raised, all or the shares of the real estate of this case shall be disposed of.

(1) The Plaintiff, at the request of the 12-holder of the instant building, was able to raise funds by means of the method (see Paragraph (4) of the instant arrangement). However, on July 31, 2012, the Plaintiff did not choose the method of settlement of such disposition, and did not grant loans of KRW 3.5 billion to deduct various expenses. The Plaintiff asserted that, at the request of the 12-holder of the instant building, CC case and MM, the Plaintiff was in charge of the instant auction service. As such, the Plaintiff’s remaining surplus (the primary surplus) after deducting various expenses from the instant loan and then returning it to the CC

of 175,00,000 won out of the money to be used in repaying the claims of the above lien holders (see subparagraph 4) was paid in advance to MM from August 3, 2012 to March 25, 2013 (see subparagraph 4).

In addition, all of the expenses incurred or anticipated to incurred by the loan of this case until that time.

I seem to have been able to cover.

(5) Article 48 (8) 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall be construed as "the date when u300 service is paid or the date when the service is provided is completed, whichever comes first."

The Plaintiff’s loan of the instant real estate as collateral under the instant agreement is determined by the agreement.

The FF’s account of an amount equivalent to KRW 500 million of the instant loans, between August 2, 2012 and August 30, 2012, after having agreed to preferentially deduct the instant remuneration claim.

The Plaintiff was transferred to the Plaintiff’s account. Therefore, in the instant case, the right to income arising from the instant agreement was considerably mature and finalized as well as the possibility of realizing the right to income arising from the instant agreement around July 31, 2012, falling under “u 3000 service payment date,” or “the date on which the provision of the service was completed,” and thereafter, the realizing income arising from the provision of the instant service was completed by deducting the instant remuneration claim from the instant loan from August 2, 2012 to August 30, 2012.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that the said money does not constitute remuneration paid fromCC case on the ground that it was the money raised by the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff’s side is not only the authorized person entrusted with the auction service of this case fromCC case, but also the real estate loan or the disposal price of this case shall be returned toCC case after the expense deduction. As the instant real estate loan or the disposal price of this case was determined to be returned toCC case after the expense deduction, both of the instant real estate and the money borrowed as a collateral are owned byCC case in relation to the two parties. The Plaintiff’s above assertion on the other premise cannot be accepted.

(6) In full view of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the time when the Plaintiff supplied the instant service and received the income from the business income under the Value-Added Tax Act at the time of supplying the instant service and receiving the instant real estate as collateral, and thereafter deducted various expenses as stipulated in paragraph (3) of the instant arrangement, such as the instant remuneration, around July 31, 2012, when it was possible for the Plaintiff to purchase the instant real estate by means of auction costs and receive the instant loan from the Plaintiff as collateral. In addition, it is reasonable to view that the date of the Plaintiff’s receipt of the business income under the Value-Added Tax Act and the date of the Plaintiff’s receipt of the instant remuneration amount pursuant

3) Determination on the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion

A) The Plaintiff asserted that, among the instant loans, KRW 60 million was to be deposited at the request of 00 stable consultation, and KRW 175 million was not completed until the auction proceeds were disposed of pursuant to Article 4(4) of the instant agreement, and the auction service of this case was not completed until the remainder of the auction proceeds was paid after the lapse of three months from the date of the payment of the remainder of auction proceeds, due to the prior payment of the lien claim to be paid as a surplus at the request of some subcontractors in need of advance.

However, the following circumstances recognized by the above recognized facts and quoted evidences, i.e., ①

Deposit of KRW 600 million among the loans in this case to 00 Livestock Cooperatives is made by the plaintiff on the part of the plaintiff under the agreement of this case.

(2) The Plaintiff’s side does not have to raise any cost solely on the loan.

e. The instant real estate was disposed of to procure it, and the method of settlement of such disposal.

In addition, the plaintiff did not choose s u u u300, and the plaintiff's side did not pay various expenses as stipulated in Paragraph 3 of the instant arrangement.

To the extent that all costs are met and the cost deduction is made, theCC type or sewage level before such cost deduction is made.

In spite of the absence of the obligation to pay surplus or lien claims to persons, some subcontractors;

The payment of KRW 175 million was made in advance to the public, and ④ as seen earlier in these circumstances

In addition to the value, expected cost, etc. of the real estate of this case, 00 Livestock Cooperatives at the time

the contract of this case, even if the above KRW 600 million was deposited, if the first instance party fulfilled the obligation.

(5) the actual amount of KRW 600,000,00,000,00

The loan of this case is used to repay the principal and interest of the loan of this case, which is increased due to non-performance of one kind of obligation.

In full view, as seen earlier, at least from the point of view of the timing of supply of services under the Value-Added Tax Act and the time of receipt of business income under the Income Tax Act, the Plaintiff’s obligation to raise and deduct expenses under the instant agreement was completed on or around July 31, 2012, which led to the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her duty and use the computation of the Plaintiff’s provision of services, as well as the mature and final maturity for the Plaintiff to the extent that the possibility of realizing the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant remuneration was considerably high, and it is insufficient to reverse this determination by only the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff or the descriptions in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1

Therefore, the above argument of the first-party plaintiff cannot be accepted on a different premise.

B) In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant auction service included “the obligation to maintain, keep, and dispose of the instant real estate so that the Plaintiff’s claim for construction price can be repaid by the CC-type subcontractor, which submitted a letter of waiver of lien pursuant to paragraph (6) of the instant arrangement.” Thus, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant auction service was not completed until the repayment is made.

However, as seen earlier, the instant agreement was just between the Plaintiff and theCC type, and the services that the Plaintiff’s side ought to provide toCC type according to the instant agreement, including (i) the Plaintiff’s financing of expenses, (ii) the Plaintiff’s successful bid of the instant real estate, and (iii) the Plaintiff’s financing of expenses, and (ii) the transfer of surplus and the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate toCC type after deducting all kinds of expenses as stipulated in paragraph (3) of the instant agreement from the amount awarded a successful bid, and (ii) the transfer of the ownership transfer on the instant real estate to the Plaintiff. In light of the circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the written statements in subparagraphs 1 through 16 of the instant agreement included the above details for the said subcontractors

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion based on this premise is without merit.

C) In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the CC case does not have the ability to pay the costs required for the auction service of this case or the Plaintiff’s remuneration from the beginning, and that the current cost of holding and managing the real estate of this case, which the Plaintiff bears, continues to increase, so the Plaintiff’s claim for the remuneration of this case against the CC case, is not highly feasible.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff side raised their own expenses around July 31, 2012.

As well as the successful bid of the instant real estate, the loan of the amount of KRW 3.5 billion for the instant loan and deduction or could have been made of the various expenses (including KRW 500 million for the instant remuneration claim) stipulated in Paragraph (3) of the instant arrangement, and (B) in the case of business income such as the instant remuneration claim, even if the cause for impossibility of recovery occurs after the right was determined in accordance with the principle of confirmation of right.

It shall be treated as bad debt under Article 55 (1) 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act or national taxes.

Since it can be corrected by ex post facto request for correction prescribed in Article 45-2, etc. of the Framework Act, it can be recovered later.

It is unnecessary to consider the impossible circumstances (Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1157 Decided September 29, 201, etc.)

In light of the circumstances such as the foregoing, it is insufficient to reverse the judgment that the Plaintiff’s receipt time of business income under the instant agreement was reached around July 31, 2012 only with the descriptions of Gap evidence 1 through 16.

Therefore, the above assertion by the first-party plaintiff cannot be accepted on a different premise.

4) Sub-determination

As above, insofar as the period of supply of services under the Value-Added Tax Act and the period of receipt of business income under the Income Tax Act shall be deemed to have arrived at around July 31, 2012 due to the instant agreement, each of the instant dispositions based on the said period is lawful. Accordingly, the first-party Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed.

As the conclusion is justified, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The decision shall be rendered as above.