Suwon District Court 2014Guhap50980 ( November 28, 2014)

The delay in the collection of the construction cost is an abnormal transaction with no economic feasibility.

Although the contents of the contract are revised to delay the payment of the construction price after the completion of construction work three months prior to the completion of the apartment sale to a person with a special relationship, it is a transaction that lacks economic rationality in terms of social norms and does not make any agreement on compensation for delayed payment of construction price.

2014Nu7438 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax, etc.

○○○ Construction (main)

The director of the tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Guhap50980 Decided November 28, 2014

June 3, 2015

July 15, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of corporate tax of KRW 42,340,000 against the Plaintiff on April 15, 2013 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning for the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s new argument in the first instance trial under Paragraph (2) below, and therefore, this Court cited it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In 2002, ○○○ paid KRW 1,630,000 to the Plaintiff as the provisional payment. Since there was an implied agreement between the Plaintiff and ○○○○ to offset the said provisional payment against the construction price at issue, the amount equivalent to KRW 1,630,00,00 shall be excluded from the tax base for calculating the recognized interest and the interest paid.

B. Determination

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 11 through 13, since ○○○ deposited KRW 1,630,00,000 from his own account on June 3, 2002 to the plaintiff’s account on the same day, and the plaintiff’s account books are recorded as “temporary receipt” with respect to the above amount. However, the plaintiff's submission of evidence regarding the existence of the above amount up to the tax trial and the first instance trial without any assertion related to set-off should reach the first instance court, and it is difficult to view that ○○○○○○○ was not submitted with reference to the above mentioned contents at the time of undergoing a tax investigation, but the investigator’s key part of the construction price was not subject to taxation, but with reference to the above documents, it is difficult to find that 00,000 won and 00 won were not subject to taxation, and the plaintiff’s assertion that 00,000 won and 00 won were not subject to taxation, and there was no objective evidence to acknowledge the issue of set-off and set-off of the construction price.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition.