1. The Defendant’s value-added tax for the first term of March 23, 2015 against the Plaintiff on March 201, KRW 176,358,258 (including additional tax) for the first term of 2006.

Details of the disposition

On September 20, 1996, 23 persons, including the Plaintiff, etc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “members”) who were owners of 3,775 square meters of land, Jung-gu, Seoul, and 12 lots (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) were jointly established on the instant land for the purpose of newly building a commercial building on the instant land to sell in lots and engage in leasing business.

On December 30, 200, the instant association newly constructed a B-building consisting of 1,878 stores on the instant land (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) and sold 1,600 stores to the general public after completing registration of ownership preservation on January 11, 2001, and granted the right to use the part corresponding to the site ownership of the store purchased between the buyer and the buyer for 30 years, and additionally concluded a land-use contract (hereinafter “instant land-use contract”) with the buyer for the land-use fee of KRW 1,14.1 billion from the buyer in advance under the instant land-use contract, and treated the land-use fee of KRW 1,14.1 billion from the buyer in advance, and reported and paid the value-added tax from January 1, 2001 to December 201.

However, after the sale of the instant commercial building, a majority of the land owned by the association members was transferred to a third party due to voluntary auction, etc. (hereinafter “non-members”), and a part of the non-members filed a lawsuit claiming return of unjust enrichment against the association of this case or the buyers, which became final and conclusive in that lawsuit, the court rendered a judgment to the effect that “the association of this case and the buyers shall have the duty 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 have acquired part of the instant land.”

The association of this case is based on the above judgment.