Supreme Court Decision 2006Du14865 (Law No. 23, 2009)

Daejeon High Court 2006Nu314 (Law No. 24, 2006)

With the additional collection of remaining goods upon closure of business, claiming title trust is contrary to the principle of good faith.

In order to avoid compulsory execution, the title trust and related contract are invalid only when the title trust and related contract are imposed in accordance with the self-supply regulations, while filing a report on the closure of the business and paying the sales tax after receiving the ownership of the real estate as a result of the transfer of the business registration and receiving the refund of the input tax after receiving the registration of the business.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's appeal on the value-added tax amounting to the second period of December 10, 2004 as of December 10, 2004 among the judgment of the first instance is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit after filing the appeal.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 113,196,030 on December 10, 2004 against the plaintiff on December 10, 2004 (the plaintiff withdraws the lawsuit of revocation of the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 9,300,000 on October 1, 2004 at the trial after remand).

1. Objects to be tried on the political party after remand;

The plaintiff sought revocation of the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 9,300,00 and additional tax of KRW 117,180 for the first quarter of 2004 and the second quarter of value-added tax of KRW 9,300 for the second quarter of 2004 and the second quarter of value-added tax of KRW 113,196,030 for the second quarter of 2004 on December 10, 2004. The first instance court dismissed all the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff appealed the first instance court's decision, and the first instance court rejected the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for the second quarter of 200,000 for the second quarter of 204. The plaintiff's appeal against the second quarter of 20,000 for the second quarter of 20,000 for the second quarter of 30,000 for the second quarter of 20, which was reversed by the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant.

Therefore, among the plaintiff's claim, the part of the value-added tax and additional tax for the first period of 2004 shall be decided by the judgment of the court prior to the remand, and the part of the value-added tax for the second period of 2004 on October 1, 2004 shall be excluded from the object of the judgment prior to the withdrawal of the lawsuit, and only the part of the value-added tax for the second period of 2004 on December 10, 204 shall be subject to the judgment of the court.

2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The remaining reasons for this decision are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (However, the court of first instance imposed "the preliminary return tax amount of KRW 9,300,000" in 2, 16 and 17, and notified "the preliminary return tax amount of KRW 9,300,000", and notified the scheduled value-added tax of KRW 9,300,000."

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the second half of the value-added tax on December 10, 2004 for the value-added tax of KRW 113,196,030 for the second half of the year 204 is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal against this part is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.