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

Cheong-gu Office

Defendant’s global income tax amounting to KRW 000,000 for the year 2015, imposed on Plaintiff on November 1, 2017 (additional tax)

b) revoke the portion exceeding KRW 000 (including additional duties) of the disposition of imposition.

A. On December 29, 2014, the Plaintiff completed business registration under the Housing Construction and Sales Business Act, and closed on September 8, 2015.

was engaged in business.

B. On December 26, 2014, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit to build a multi-household 29 households (hereinafter “instant housing”) on the land (OO-O-O) and three parcels (hereinafter “instant housing”). Around that time, the Plaintiff began its construction and sold the relevant housing after obtaining approval for use on May 15, 2015.

C. When filing a return on the global income tax reverted to year 2015, the Plaintiff estimated the amount by simple expense rate, and applied the special tax reduction and exemption to small and medium enterprises pursuant to Article 7(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 15227, Dec. 19, 2017; hereinafter the same). Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a return on the global income tax accordingly.

D. As a result of the consolidated investigation against the Plaintiff, the director of the regional tax office of the OO notified the Defendant of taxation data that the Plaintiff’s income should be estimated and corrected as standard expense rate, and that the Plaintiff did not engage in the construction business, so that the Plaintiff should be excluded from special tax reduction and exemption for small and medium enterprises under Article 7(1) of

E. Accordingly, on June 18, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the total income tax for the year 2015 as KRW 000 (including additional tax) based on the foregoing taxation data (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

F. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 26, 2018, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on November 22, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Since the instant housing was constructed under the Plaintiff’s responsibility and supervision by lending the name of a construction company under the Plaintiff’s name of the construction business, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff runs the construction business in light of the principle of substantial taxation. Nevertheless, the instant disposition that excluded the special tax reduction and exemption provisions on small and medium enterprises under Article 7(1) of

B. Determination

1) Articles 2(3), 7(1)1(g) and 7(2)2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provide that an amount equivalent to the tax amount calculated by multiplying the income tax on income generated from the relevant workplace by 20/10 shall be reduced or exempted for a company running a construction business among small and medium enterprises, and the classification of the type of business used in the relevant Act shall be in accordance with the Korean Standard Industrial Classification publicly notified by the Commissioner of the Statistics Korea pursuant to

2) However, according to the former Korean Standard Industrial Classification (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2015-311, Sept. 24, 2015; hereinafter the same), “construction business (Classification Code 4111)” applicable to the disposition-related global income tax taxable period refers to industrial activities that build residential buildings, such as independently and multi-households, apartment houses, and apartment houses. On the other hand, the industrial activities that build residential buildings by entering into a collective contract without directly performing construction activities and sell and sell the buildings in lots are classified as “real estate business and leasing business” as “real estate development and supply business (classification code 68121).

3) The above provisions are as follows: (a) the construction contractor is not the plaintiff but the "OOOOO" in the building ledger of the housing of this case; (b) the plaintiff is not holding a construction business license; and (c) there is no specific data to deem that the housing of this case is equipped with human resources, physical facilities, or capacity to construct the housing of this case under his/her responsibility; (c) according to the fact confirmation of the customer preparation submitted by the plaintiff; (d) details of the transaction statement, quotation, etc. (Evidence Nos. 4 through 21) it is recognized that the plaintiff paid some expenses to daily workers as labor expenses, etc.; and (e) it is difficult to view that the amount falls under the category of "real estate business and lease business" under the former Korean Standard Industrial Classification; and (e) it falls under the category of "real estate business and lease business" under the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

4) Therefore, the instant disposition, which was taken to exclude special tax reduction and exemption for small and medium enterprises, is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.