logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2011.10.19 2011구합12139
부가가치세 경정청구 거부처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. 23 persons, including C, etc., who were owners of B and 12 lots outside Seoul, Jung-gu, and 12 lots (hereinafter “instant land”) (hereinafter “members”) were jointly established on June 12, 1996 for the purpose of newly building a commercial building on the instant land to sell in lots or engage in leasing business.

B. After December 30, 200, the Plaintiff newly constructed a building consisting of 1,878 stores on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) and then sold 1,600 stores to the public on January 11, 2001, after completing registration of ownership preservation, and the Plaintiff granted the buyer the right to use the instant land for 30 years in order to guarantee the ownership of the shop sold between the buyer and the buyer. In return, the Plaintiff entered into an additional contract for land use with the buyer for 1,14.1 billion won in advance from the buyer (hereinafter “instant land use contract”). Under the instant land use contract, the Plaintiff paid the buyer the land rent of 1,14.1 billion won in advance from the buyer under the instant land use contract and treated it as the player rent and paid the value-added tax from 2001 to 2008.

C. However, after the sale of the instant commercial building, a majority of the instant land owned by the non-members was transferred to a third party for reasons of voluntary auction, etc. (hereinafter “non-members”), and a part of the non-members filed a lawsuit seeking return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff or the buyer, which became final and conclusive in each lawsuit above, the judgment was rendered to the effect that “the Plaintiff and the buyer are obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the possession and use of the land attached to the store to the non-members who acquired part of the instant land.”

Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to lease the land of this case based on the above judgment.

arrow