Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap54134 ( October 25, 2014)

3 Time of payment is that the payment has been lawfully made in accordance with the service contract of this case.

3 The timing of payment is legitimate for the Defendant’s disposition of corporate tax and value-added tax on the basis of the lawful establishment in accordance with the instant service agreement, and the provisions of the panel agreement cannot be applied to this case on the premise that the business is conducted until a building permit (approval) is granted.

Article 7 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2014Nu696888 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Corporate Tax, etc.

○○○ Building Office Co., Ltd.

Head of Seocho Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap54134 decided October 23, 2014

May 19, 2015

June 2, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this part is as follows, on the 8th page, which is a part of the decision on the timing for payment of the three-dimensional amount of the issue among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, 5 or less times under the following, and except for the addition of the decision on the argument that the plaintiff made in the court of first instance, it is identical to the statement on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8

[Supplementary Use]

Article 12(3) of the instant service contract provides that, since the payment period of three advance payment was set as the last day of the month designated as the implementer, if the instant service contract is valid, the implementer has not yet been designated and the three advance payment period has not yet arrived. However, since ○○○ has lawfully terminated the instant service contract, the provisions on the three advance payment period prescribed in the instant service contract were invalidated. In addition, Article 12(3) of the instant service contract provides that, at the time of termination of the contract under paragraph (1) of the same Article, ○○○ shall settle the design amount of the services performed by the Plaintiff until the termination of the contract, and shall pay the reasonable amount, but the settlement of the services completed by the due date shall not be made. Article 7(7) provides that "Where Article 12(3) of the instant service contract is applied mutatis mutandis due to the change in the payment period of the urban development zone, the three advance payment period shall be deemed as the work completed by the last day of May 10, 2009, which is the last day of May 23, 19.

[Supplementary Parts]

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful on a different premise because ○○○○ may not be seen as dispute between ○○○ and ○○○○○○ and the Plaintiff, etc., seeking payment of KRW 805,000,000 equivalent to the original contract amount of KRW 100,000,000, which is a part of the service contract of this case after the termination of the above service contract of this case, based on Article 11(1) of the above service contract of February 18, 2005, which is a part of the above service contract of this case, and thus, ○○○○○ and ○○○○, etc. were not entitled to the above service contract of this case, and thus, it cannot be seen that the above provision of Article 11(1) of the above service contract of this case was not applicable to the case where the above construction permit of this case was not applied before the completion of the service contract of this case after the completion of the construction permit of Gap’s service contract of this case (the above construction permit of 200%).

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.