2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 1/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition of Paragraph (1) and the defendant on June 18, 2004, imposed value-added tax of 659,850 won for the first term portion of 1999, value-added tax of 229,400 won for the second term portion of 1999, value-added tax of 620,350 won for the second term portion of 200, value-added tax of 58,820 won for the second term portion of 200, value-added tax of 510,310 won for the first term portion of 201, and value-added tax of 481,470 for the second term portion of 201, respectively, shall be revoked.

A. From January 1, 1998 to June 5, 2003, the Plaintiff leased the Plaintiff’s ownership of 00:00 Do 000-0 Do 1,654 m2 and its ground (hereinafter “instant real property”) to a limited partnership company of which the Plaintiff is its representative member, and filed a return of value-added tax and global income tax as follows.

Classification

Value-added Tax

Global Income Tax

Tax Base

Rental deposit;

Monthly income tax;

(won)

Taxation

Type

Revenue amount

(won)

Amount of income;

(won)

Type of Report

1. Initials

2 Colors

1998

2,092,602

2,107,397

20,000,000

200,000

Special Cases of Taxation

4,199,99

2,940,000

Standard Rate

199

1,943,835

1,956,164

“”

“”

“”

3,899,99

2,593,499

“”

200

2,318,852

5,556,164

30,000,000

“”

Simplified taxable persons

4,653,098

3,094,310

“”

201

2,062,849

2,077,150

“”

“”

“”

2,400,000

-1,179,138

External Coordination

202

1,884,328

1,895,671

“”

“”

“”

2,400,000

-3,271,848

“”

2003

1,528,164

-

“”

“”

“”

1,000,000

-3,573,879

“”

B. The Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate at low price to 000; (b) calculated the market price of the instant real estate as indicated in attached Table 1. (Standard Market Price Table per square meter of the instant real estate) and attached Table 2. (C) as stated in attached Table 3. (C) under Article 89(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act effective from January 1, 2003; (c) calculated the adequate rent table as stated in attached Table 3.(C) and calculated the difference between the adequate rent table calculated as stated in attached Table 4.(value-Added Tax Table) and the global income tax base reported by the Plaintiff and the global income tax base for 03 years and the global income tax amount for 205 years and 30 years and 40.7 years and 208 years, 205 years and 199, 200, 2008 won and 40.7 years and 18 years and 20 years, 2018 years and 25 years and 201.

C. On December 20, 2004, the Plaintiff requested a trial to the National Tax Tribunal, and was dismissed on January 24, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 7-1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 11

3. The descriptions of evidence Nos. 12 through 20, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

(a) The value-added tax for the first, second and first half years of 1999 and 1, 2000;

(1) The parties' assertion

(a)The plaintiff's assertion

Article 50 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which was applied at the time, stipulates that the market price of services in unfair transaction books shall be the price formed in normal transactions with business operators and persons other than related parties. However, the defendant imposed a tax on the rent calculated pursuant to Article 89 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act based on Article 50 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree, which was amended by Presidential Decree No. 17827 on December 30, 2002 and enforced from January 1, 2003, based on Article 50 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree,

(B) Defendant’s assertion

In the case of the instant real estate, there is no real lease case between unrelated third parties, and there is no real estate that is similar to the land category, location condition, etc. of the instant real estate. Therefore, the rent calculated pursuant to Article 89 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is the value calculated by a reasonable and reasonable method, and the said

(2) Determination

(A) Article 13 (1) 3 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6049 of Dec. 28, 199) and Article 13 (2) 3-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6460 of Apr. 7, 2001) provide that the market price of services supplied by the supplier shall be the tax base of value-added tax in the case of unfairly low prices for the supply of services. Article 50 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17041 of Dec. 29, 200) provides that "The market price under each subparagraph of Article 13 (1) of the Act shall be the price formed in normal transactions with persons other than the person having special relation with the supplier."

Comprehensively taking account of the above provisions, in cases where a lessor of a real estate unfairly lowers the rent for the real estate to a related party, it shall be calculated on the basis of the price formed in cases where the lessor of a real estate makes a normal transaction with a unrelated party in the calculation of the denied rent for the leased rent. Even in cases where there is no such actual transaction with a unrelated party, it is sufficient to consider all such conditions as the land category, location, surrounding environment, utilization status, scope of use, etc. of the pertinent land and the area and individual factors forming the price of the real estate, and the reasonable transaction price of similar goods within the neighboring and similar areas, such as investigating and examining the adequate transaction price of the pertinent land (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu7637, Jan. 21, 1992).

(B) Meanwhile, Article 50 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act, which was amended by Presidential Decree No. 17827, Dec. 30, 2002, effective January 1, 2003, provides that "in case where a business operator does not have a continuous transaction price in a similar situation with a person other than the person having a special relationship or a general transaction price with a third party, or where the market price is unclear, the price pursuant to Article 98 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act or Article 89 (2) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act shall be the market price of the service." Thus, in case where there is no real lease case of similar similar real estate which can be compared to the real

(C) The Defendant’s calculation of the appropriate rent for the instant real estate pursuant to Article 89(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which was enforced from January 1, 2003, when calculating the amount of value-added tax for the first period of 1,209 and 1, 2000, is as stated in the above 1.B., and unless there is no proof by the Plaintiff as to the fact that there is an actual rent for the instant real estate that could be compared to the instant real estate, the calculation of the appropriate rent for the instant real estate in accordance with the above method can be seen as a reasonable method, and it cannot be deemed as a retroactive application of the statutes or retroactive taxation.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(b) Value-added tax for two years 200; and

(1) The parties' assertion

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

1) According to Article 50 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act which was applied at the time, the price formed in normal transactions with persons other than the person in a special relationship with the business operator shall be deemed the market price of services for which unfair practices are denied. However, the defendant, on the ground of Article 50 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act which was amended by Presidential Decree No. 17827, Dec. 30, 2002, which was enforced from January 1, 2003, imposed a tax by taking the rent calculated pursuant to Article 89 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree

2) According to Article 26(1) and (2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act and Article 74-3(4)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, a simplified taxable person shall pay an amount equivalent to 30/100 (3%) of the market price of services supplied for the second period of 2000. The said disposition of imposition was unlawful since the said 10% tax rate was applied.

(B) Defendant’s assertion

1) The above disposition imposing rent calculated pursuant to Article 89 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act as the tax base does not contravene the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition.

2) The above disposition is calculated by applying the tax rate of 10% to the amount calculated by multiplying the tax base by the added-value ratio of 20/100 (2%) under Article 6 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree. Therefore, there is no error in the calculation of

(2) Determination

(A) Is contrary to the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition

2. On the grounds as described in paragraph (1)(2), the imposition of value-added tax for the second year 2000 does not violate the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(B) Whether there was an error in the application of the tax rate

Article 74-3 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 6460 of Apr. 7, 2001) provides that "for a simplified taxable person, the amount calculated in the formula prescribed by Presidential Decree of 10/100 to 50/100 of the average value-added ratio, etc. by type of business reported for three years immediately preceding the X for the supply price in the relevant taxable period, shall be the payable tax amount, taking into account the value-added ratio, etc. of the relevant type of business prescribed by Presidential Decree," and Article 74-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17041 of Dec. 29, 200) provides that "The value-added ratio of the relevant type of business prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 26 (2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act means 30/100 in the case of a real estate rental business, etc., regardless of Article 161 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree, Article 2030-4 of the said Act.

According to the above provisions, the value-added rate of 20/100 shall apply to the calculation of the payable tax amount of the value-added tax for the real estate rental business operator, among simplified taxable persons.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not apply the added value ratio to the proceeds from supply in the pertinent taxable period is without merit.

(c) Value-added tax for the period of 1,201;

(1) The parties' assertion

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

1) Article 50(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the market price stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 13(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, the continuous transaction price between third parties, or the general transaction price between third parties, in the absence of the above price or where the market price is unclear, Article 9(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act or Article 89(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the calculation of the market price. Article 89(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the calculation of the market price. Article 89(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which is similar to the transaction in question, is based on the price calculated by applying the appraisal corporation’s appraisal value, the rent calculated by applying Articles 38, 39, and 61 through 64 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act in order where the market price is unclear.

2) According to Article 26(1) and (2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act, Article 74-3(4)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Value-Added Tax Act, which was applicable at the time, Article 26(1) and (2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act, Article 74-3(4)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that a simplified taxable person shall pay an amount equivalent to 30/100 (3

(B) Defendant’s assertion

1) The imposition of value-added tax for the first and second years of 201 based on the rent calculated pursuant to Article 89(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act does not violate the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition.

2) There is no error in the calculation of the amount of value-added tax for the first and second period of 201.

(2) Determination

(A) Is contrary to the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition

Article 50 (1) 1 and 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 17460 of Dec. 31, 2001) provides that “The continuous trade price or general trade price between persons other than those having a special relationship under each subparagraph of Article 13 (1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act shall be the price under Article 98 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act or Article 89 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act if the above price does not exist or is unclear,” and Article 98 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 17456 of Dec. 31, 201) provides that “The former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 17460 of the Corporate Tax Act) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the calculation of the market price of the assets purchased from a specially related person or transferred assets to a person under a special relationship with the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. 20.

However, only the method of calculating the market price of land and buildings under Article 61 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is stipulated, and there is no provision regarding the method of calculating the rent of land and buildings.

Therefore, in the case of value-added tax for the first and second years of 2001, when the lessor of real estate does not engage in a normal transaction with a person who is not a specially related party, it is sufficient to take into account all the circumstances such as the land category, location, surrounding environment, utilization status, and use method of the pertinent land, and the region and individual factors forming the price of the real estate, and to take into account the price calculated by the reasonable method, such as investigating and examining the adequate transaction price of similar buildings within the neighboring and similar areas.

Therefore, for the same reasons as the above 2. A. (2), the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(B) Whether there was an error in the application of the tax rate

Article 1661 and Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17041, Dec. 29, 2000) provides that "in applying the amended provisions of Article 74-3 (4), from February 2, 2000 to December 31, 203, the category of business under Article 74-3 (4) 2 shall apply to the value-added rate of 22.5/100 in the taxable period of 201."

According to the above provisions, among simplified taxable persons, the value-added rate of 22.5/100 shall apply to the calculation of the tax amount of the value-added tax for the real estate rental business operator in 1/2001 and 2/100.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not apply the added value ratio to the proceeds from supply in the pertinent taxable period is without merit.

(d) Disposition of imposition of global income tax for the year 199 through 2003.

(1) The parties' assertion

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

1) Article 41(2) of the former Income Tax Act applied at the time of 1999; Article 98(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act applies mutatis mutandis to the calculation of the income amount at the time of denying unfair acts. Article 89(3) through (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the amount calculated by multiplying the amount obtained by subtracting security deposits or deposits received in connection with the provision of assets from the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the market value of the pertinent assets by the fixed deposit interest rate (Article 89(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act or the larger amount of the total amount of asset maintenance, such as depreciation costs and public charges, repair costs, etc. (Article 1) shall be deemed as the market value of real estate rent without any ground. Thus, the defendant was deemed as the

2) In calculating the market price of the instant real estate, the Defendant calculated the land based on the officially assessed individual land price, and the building based on the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and there is no basis for calculating the market price of the building based on the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and thus, each income tax imposition for the year 199 through 2003 is unlawful.

3) In the calculation of the rent for real estate, when subparagraph 1 above is applied, the amount converted by applying the market rent rate to the monthly rent is applied, but the defendant calculated only the nominal security deposit as security deposit or security deposit, and thus, the imposition of each income tax for the year 199 through 2003 is unlawful.

(B) Defendant’s assertion

1) Article 89(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which was applied at the time of 199, does not accord to the Plaintiff even if the market price of the real estate rent is the larger of the amounts under subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 89 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and thus, deeming the amount

2) According to Article 89(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, where the market price is unclear, the market price assessed by applying mutatis mutandis the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act shall be determined in the order of the appraised value by an appraisal corporation, and the value assessed by applying mutatis mutandis the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act. The method of evaluating buildings under the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act is the value publicly notified in consideration of the new construction price, new construction year, use, structure, etc. of the building, and the value is low when the actual market

3) Article 25(1) of the former Income Tax Act and Article 53(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act are deemed provisions for calculating the deemed rent at the time of field investigation, and Article 25(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provide that the amount calculated by the prescribed formula by applying the fixed deposit interest rate to the amount obtained by deducting the amount equivalent to the construction cost of real estate for rent from the rental deposit in the case of receiving a rental deposit from the market rent, notwithstanding the market rent rate, shall be included in the total amount of income. The income equivalent to the above deemed rent is different in nature and calculation from the monthly rent actually earned under the agreement between the parties. Thus, in calculating the amount of income from real estate rent, it shall

(2) Determination

(A) Whether calculating the market price of the instant real estate pursuant to Article 89(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is unlawful

Article 98 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16664 of Dec. 31, 1999) which was delegated by Article 41 (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 6051 of Dec. 28, 1999) which was applied at the time of 199 applies mutatis mutandis to Article 89 (3) through (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16658 of Dec. 31, 199). Article 89 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides for the amount of income at the time of denial of unfair acts within the scope of the scope of the amount calculated by multiplying the fixed deposit interest rate by the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the market value of the relevant assets less the deposit or deposit received in connection with provision of the assets (Article 16664 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act).

According to the above provisions, in cases where the amount under Article 89(4)1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is deemed the market price, which is the market price pursuant to the laws and regulations, and even in cases where a small amount is deemed the market price, the amount is deemed the market price, and thus, is not favorable to the Plaintiff, even if the Defendant, without comparing the amount under subparagraphs 1 and 2 above, deemed the market price as the market price, such disposition cannot be deemed unlawful.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(B) Whether the application of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is unlawful when calculating the market price of the building among the instant real estate

1) Article 98(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which was applied from 1999 to 2003, provides that Article 89(3) through (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the calculation of income amount when denying unfair acts. Article 89(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that where Article 89(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to a wrongful calculation panel, the amount calculated by multiplying the fixed deposit interest rate by the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the market value of the relevant assets less the deposit money or deposits received in connection with the provision of the assets (in case of a portion belonging to year 199, the larger amount between the above amount and the expenses incurred by the maintenance and management of the relevant assets, such as the depreciation costs, public charges, repairing expenses, etc. of the relevant assets). Article 89(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the market value shall be determined in order of similar case prices or general transaction prices.

Comprehensively taking account of the above provisions, the market price of the relevant asset, which is a premise for calculating the reasonable rent pursuant to Article 89 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, shall be calculated in the order of prices pursuant to Article 89 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, pursuant to Article 89 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

2) However, in calculating the market price of the instant real estate, insofar as there is a similar or general transaction price of the building at the time of imposition, or there is no proof by the Plaintiff on the existence of the appraisal price of the said building, even if the Defendant calculated the amount of income based on the market price of the building under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and calculated the amount of global income tax for the year 199 through 2003 based thereon, such assessment alone cannot be deemed unlawful.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(C) Whether it is unlawful to deduct only a nominal security deposit when calculating a reasonable rent.

1) Article 89(4)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which had been applied from 1999 to 2003, provides that the amount of income from wrongful calculation shall be the amount calculated by multiplying the fixed deposit interest rate by the amount of 50/100 of the market value of the assets, less the amount of rental deposit or deposit received in connection with the provision of the assets, where Article 89(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act cannot be applied.

However, in a case where a part of a real estate rental business receives rent as a security deposit, a part of a rent as a security deposit, and a monthly rent as a security deposit and a monthly rent are less than a security deposit as a mutual substitution relation, and the security deposit is less than a monthly rent as the security deposit is less than a security deposit. In this case, the issue of the conversion rate between a monthly rent and a security deposit depends on an agreement between the parties concerned (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Du1799, Jan. 11, 2002). In a case where a part of a rent is to receive a monthly rent, the security deposit or security deposit under Article 89(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act shall be deemed to be the amount converted into a security deposit in accordance with an agreement, etc. between the parties concerned, not a nominal security deposit or security deposit, but a monthly rent.

2) Meanwhile, in calculating gross income, Article 53(3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6557 of Dec. 31, 2001) and Article 53(3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18127 of Dec. 31, 2001) provides that the interest rate prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy in consideration of the fixed deposit interest rate for rental financial institutions X1/365 X-the total sum of interest, discount fees and dividends accruing from the rental business for the pertinent taxable period shall be included in gross income.

However, it is not applicable to unfair low-price rental because it provides for the method of calculating the total amount of revenue when real estate is leased at a normal transaction amount.

3) As long as the Defendant applied the deducted key money or security deposit as key money or security deposit on the pretext of a nominal key money or security deposit in appropriating the amount of income pursuant to Article 89(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, each disposition of imposition on the basis thereof is unlawful. The Plaintiff’

E. Sub-committee

The imposition of each value-added tax on the first term to the second term of January 1999 is lawful, and each disposition imposing each global income tax on the second term of February 1999 through 2003 is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified only to the extent that the plaintiff seeks minimum of the imposition disposition of global income tax for the year 199 through 2003.

[Supreme Court Decision 2007Du24883, Oct. 28, 2008]

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

[Seoul High Court Decision 2007Nu5341 ( November 07, 2007)]

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revoked part is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On June 18, 2004, the Defendant revoked the imposition of global income tax of KRW 659,850 for the first term of 1999, value-added tax of KRW 629,40 for the second term of 1999, value-added tax of value-added tax of KRW 620,350 for the second term of 200, value-added tax of KRW 58,820 for the second term of 200, value-added tax of KRW 510,310 for the first term of 201, value-added tax of KRW 481,470 for the second term of 201, and the imposition of global income tax of KRW 7,304,380 for the second term of 199, KRW 6,50 for the second term of 200 for the second term of 200, KRW 300 for the second term of 204, KRW 209 for the second term of 2000 for the global income tax.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought the revocation of each imposition of value-added tax and each imposition of global income tax stated in the claim, and the first instance court dismissed the claim for revocation of each imposition of global income tax, and accepted the claim for revocation of each imposition of global income tax. Since the Defendant appealed only against this, the subject of the judgment by this court is limited to the claim for revocation of each imposition

2. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 1, 1998 to June 5, 2003, the Plaintiff leased a building of 00 - 00 - 190-7 - 1,654 m2 and its ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) which is owned by it, to 00 companies with its representative members (hereinafter “00”) and filed a global income tax return as follows.

Classification

Rental deposit;

Monthly rent;

Amount of revenue (won)

Amount of income (income)

Type of Report

1998

20,000,000

200,000

4,199,99

2,940,000

Standard Rate

199

〃 4

〃 4

3,899,99

2,593,499

〃 4

200

30,000,000

〃 4

4,653,098

3,094,310

〃 4

201

〃 4

〃 4

2,400,000

-1,179,138

External Coordination

202

〃 4

〃 4

2,400,000

-3,271,848

〃 4

203

〃 4

〃 4

1,000,000

-3,573,879

〃 4

B. The Defendant considers that the instant real estate was leased at a low price of 000, the Plaintiff: (a) calculated the adequate amount of rent to be reduced as stated in Article 61(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6048, Dec. 28, 1999; (b) [Attachment 1] as indicated in the standard market price table per square meter of the instant real estate in accordance with annexed Table 2; (c) [Attachment 3] as stated in attached Table 2; (d) as global income tax for 30 years and 40; (d) global income tax for 205 years and 40; (e) global income tax for 30 years and 40; (d) global income tax for 20 years and 205 years thereafter; (d) global income tax for 30 years and 205 years thereafter; (d) global income tax for 30 years and 40 years thereafter; and (e) global income tax for 200 years and 30 years and 19 years thereafter.

In the absence of dispute (in accordance with grounds for recognition), each entry in the evidence No. 1 7 through 11, evidence No. 7-1 through 5, evidence No. 7-1 through 5, each entry in the evidence No. 8 through 11, Eul 12 through 14, evidence No. 17, and Eul 21 through 23, and the purport of the whole pleadings, each entry in the evidence No. 21 through 23, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

3. Whether each of the instant dispositions imposing global income tax is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff’s act of leasing the instant real estate in 000 is a measure taken to reduce the business difficulties of 000 even at the risk of its own loss, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the burden of the instant real estate was reduced unfairly, and thus does not constitute a wrongful calculation.

(2) In calculating the market price of the real estate of this case, the Defendant calculated the land based on the officially assessed individual land price, and the building based on the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and there is no basis for calculating the market price of the building based on the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and thus, each

(3) Article 98(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that Article 89(3) through (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the calculation of the income amount when the rejection of unfair calculation by wrongful calculation under Article 98(2)2 through 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis. Article 89(4)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act applied mutatis mutandis in 1999 and 2000 provides that "the amount calculated by multiplying the amount obtained by subtracting the security deposit or deposit received in connection with the provision of the asset from the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the market value of the pertinent asset by the fixed deposit interest rate, "the amount (a)" multiplied by the amount calculated by multiplying the fixed deposit interest rate by the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the market value of the relevant asset, and the expenses incurred by the maintenance and management of the relevant asset such as the depreciation cost, public charges, repair cost, etc.

(4) In the event that the market price of rent is calculated by multiplying the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the market price of the pertinent asset by the fixed deposit interest rate for rental deposits or deposits received from the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the market price of the relevant asset, the amount calculated by converting the amount of security deposit or deposit to be deducted by the market value rate for the monthly rent shall be added, but the Defendant calculated the reasonable rental fee by deeming only the nominal security deposit as the security deposit or deposit as the security deposit, and thus, each of the instant global income tax

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the instant act of leasing real estate constitutes wrongful calculation

Wrongful calculation is established when a certain transaction between a certain specially related person is not deemed a normal transaction to be done by a reasonable economic person in light of social norms and customs. Whether a party intended to promote the benefits of tax avoidance, etc. does not need to be considered. Since the reasonable rent as seen earlier and the rent reported by the Plaintiff are significantly different, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is unacceptable.

(2) Whether the application of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is unlawful when calculating the market price of the building

According to Article 41(2) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5031 of Dec. 29, 1995) and Article 98(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15969 of Dec. 31, 1998) and Article 98(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18705 of Feb. 19, 2005) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18705 of Feb. 19, 2005) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, with respect to the calculation of the income amount at the time of rejection of wrongful calculation under Article 98(2)2 through 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, Article 89(3) through (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to this case where tangible assets other than money are provided. Accordingly, Article 89(3) through the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act from 2019 to December 319.

On the other hand, Article 89(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that where the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) cannot be applied to the provision of assets (excluding money) or services in the same manner before and after the amendment, the amount calculated pursuant to the provisions of the following subparagraphs shall be deemed to be the market price. Subparagraph 1 applicable to the provision or receipt of assets under the above subparagraphs, and subparagraph 1 applicable to the case where the assets are provided or received, the amount calculated by multiplying the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the market price of the relevant assets by the fixed deposit interest rate, less the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the market price of the relevant assets less the key money or deposits received in connection with the provision of the assets, and the amount calculated by multiplying the fixed deposit interest rate by the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the market price of the relevant assets, such as the depreciation costs, public charges, repair expenses, etc. of the relevant assets, whichever is larger,

As above, Article 89 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act applies to cases where the provision of "property or service" cannot be applied to cases where Article 89 (1) and (2) of the same Act applies. Thus, the above provision does not directly provide for the method of determining the market price of the price of the property or service (in this case, rent) or the method of determining the market price of the relevant property under subparagraph 1 (amended by Act No. 1). However, the above method of determining the market price of the relevant property is not separately provided. However, in light of Article 98 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15969, Dec. 31, 198; Presidential Decree No. 18705, Feb. 19, 2005; Presidential Decree No. 18705, Feb. 19, 200) with respect to the calculation of the market price of the assets at a price higher than the market price of the assets or transfer the assets to the related party.

However, according to Article 89(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, the market price shall be set in the order of values appraised by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 61 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, etc. (as shown in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above provisions were amended several times, but the basic contents are maintained). In calculating the market price of a building among the real estate of this case, unless the Plaintiff proves that there is a similar case price or general transaction price of the building at the time of imposition, or there is an appraisal value, the Defendant’s application of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provisions cannot be deemed unlawful in calculating the market price of the building among the real estate

(3) Whether calculating the market price pursuant to Article 89(4)1 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is unlawful

As seen earlier, Article 89(4)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17033, Dec. 29, 2000; Presidential Decree No. 17033, Dec. 29, 2000) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the instant case. Where tangible or intangible assets are provided or received, the above provision provides or receives the tangible or intangible assets, the amount calculated by multiplying the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the market value of the relevant assets by the fixed deposit interest rate, less the amount obtained by subtracting the key money or deposits received in relation to the provision of the assets, and the amount (a) "amount calculated by multiplying the fixed deposit interest rate by the amount equivalent to 50/10 of the market value of the relevant assets, and the expenses

As above, inasmuch as Article 89(4)1(a) and (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the market price shall be the larger of the amounts under items (a) and (b) above, in applying the above provision, if the Defendant, in actual application of the above provision, has made the larger of the amounts under items (a) and (b) above at the market price, it is lawful in accordance with the law, and thus, is no less favorable than the Plaintiff, even if the amount under items (a) and (b) above was considered as the market price, and thus, even if the Defendant did not compare the amounts under items (a) and (b) above, the imposition disposition of global income tax for 199 and 200

(iv)whether it is unlawful to deduct only a nominal security deposit in calculating the reasonable rent.

As seen earlier, Article 89(4)1 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 89(4)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17033, Dec. 29, 2000; Presidential Decree No. 89(4)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17033, Dec. 29, 2000) provide that “where assets are provided or received, the amount calculated by multiplying the amount of money obtained by subtracting the key money or deposits received in connection with the provision of the assets from the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the market value of the relevant assets by the fixed deposit interest rate shall

In case where the Plaintiff only deducts a nominal security deposit, if he gains the same economic profit through the mutual substitution relationship between the security deposit and the monthly rent, the tax burden varies depending on the rate of the security deposit and the monthly rent. However, the market price calculated pursuant to Article 89(4)1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is the "market price of the "rent", which is the basis for determining the low-price rental through comparison with the reported rent, and the tax authority is in the amount of the rent income in calculating the reasonable tax amount after the wrongful calculation by the tax authority. The tax authority does not themselves constitute the total amount of income or income, and it does not include the amount of gross income as well as the deemed rent under the Income Tax Act in calculating the real estate rental income. In addition, as the rate of the deposit is relatively low, if the market price is higher, it can be said that the tax burden varies only on the nominal security deposit, and thus the tax burden differs unfairly.

In addition, Supreme Court Decision 2000Du1799 Decided January 11, 2002 cited by the plaintiff cannot be invoked in this case due to the different issues. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and since the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance which has different conclusions is unfair, it is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revoked part is dismissed. It is so decided as per

[Insuwon District Court 2006Guhap3750 ( January 10, 2007)]

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 1/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition of Paragraph (1) and the defendant on June 18, 2004, imposed value-added tax of 659,850 won for the first term portion of 1999, value-added tax of 229,400 won for the second term portion of 1999, value-added tax of 620,350 won for the second term portion of 200, value-added tax of 58,820 won for the second term portion of 200, value-added tax of 510,310 won for the first term portion of 201, and value-added tax of 481,470 for the second term portion of 201, respectively, shall be revoked.

A. From January 1, 1998 to June 5, 2003, the Plaintiff leased the Plaintiff’s ownership of 00:00 Do 000-0 Do 1,654 m2 and its ground (hereinafter “instant real property”) to a limited partnership company of which the Plaintiff is its representative member, and filed a return of value-added tax and global income tax as follows.

Classification

Value-added Tax

Global Income Tax

Tax Base

Rental deposit;

Monthly income tax;

(won)

Taxation

Type

Revenue amount

(won)

Amount of income;

(won)

Type of Report

1. Initials

2 Colors

1998

2,092,602

2,107,397

20,000,000

200,000

Special Cases of Taxation

4,199,99

2,940,000

Standard Rate

199

1,943,835

1,956,164

“”

“”

“”

3,899,99

2,593,499

“”

200

2,318,852

5,556,164

30,000,000

“”

Simplified taxable persons

4,653,098

3,094,310

“”

201

2,062,849

2,077,150

“”

“”

“”

2,400,000

-1,179,138

External Coordination

202

1,884,328

1,895,671

“”

“”

“”

2,400,000

-3,271,848

“”

2003

1,528,164

-

“”

“”

“”

1,000,000

-3,573,879

“”

B. The Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate at low price to 000; (b) calculated the market price of the instant real estate as indicated in attached Table 1. (Standard Market Price Table per square meter of the instant real estate) and attached Table 2. (C) as stated in attached Table 3. (C) under Article 89(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act effective from January 1, 2003; (c) calculated the adequate rent table as stated in attached Table 3.(C) and calculated the difference between the adequate rent table calculated as stated in attached Table 4.(value-Added Tax Table) and the global income tax base reported by the Plaintiff and the global income tax base for 03 years and the global income tax amount for 205 years and 30 years and 40.7 years and 208 years, 205 years and 199, 200, 2008 won and 40.7 years and 18 years and 20 years, 2018 years and 25 years and 201.

C. On December 20, 2004, the Plaintiff requested a trial to the National Tax Tribunal, and was dismissed on January 24, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 7-1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 11

3. The descriptions of evidence Nos. 12 through 20, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

(a) The value-added tax for the first, second and first half years of 1999 and 1, 2000;

(1) The parties' assertion

(a)The plaintiff's assertion

Article 50 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which was applied at the time, stipulates that the market price of services in unfair transaction books shall be the price formed in normal transactions with business operators and persons other than related parties. However, the defendant imposed a tax on the rent calculated pursuant to Article 89 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act based on Article 50 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree, which was amended by Presidential Decree No. 17827 on December 30, 2002 and enforced from January 1, 2003, based on Article 50 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree,

(B) Defendant’s assertion

In the case of the instant real estate, there is no real lease case between unrelated third parties, and there is no real estate that is similar to the land category, location condition, etc. of the instant real estate. Therefore, the rent calculated pursuant to Article 89 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is the value calculated by a reasonable and reasonable method, and the said

(2) Determination

(A) Article 13 (1) 3 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6049 of Dec. 28, 199) and Article 13 (2) 3-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6460 of Apr. 7, 2001) provide that the market price of services supplied by the supplier shall be the tax base of value-added tax in the case of unfairly low prices for the supply of services. Article 50 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17041 of Dec. 29, 200) provides that "The market price under each subparagraph of Article 13 (1) of the Act shall be the price formed in normal transactions with persons other than the person having special relation with the supplier."

Comprehensively taking account of the above provisions, in cases where a lessor of a real estate unfairly lowers the rent for the real estate to a related party, it shall be calculated on the basis of the price formed in cases where the lessor of a real estate makes a normal transaction with a unrelated party in the calculation of the denied rent for the leased rent. Even in cases where there is no such actual transaction with a unrelated party, it is sufficient to consider all such conditions as the land category, location, surrounding environment, utilization status, scope of use, etc. of the pertinent land and the area and individual factors forming the price of the real estate, and the reasonable transaction price of similar goods within the neighboring and similar areas, such as investigating and examining the adequate transaction price of the pertinent land (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu7637, Jan. 21, 1992).

(B) Meanwhile, Article 50 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act, which was amended by Presidential Decree No. 17827, Dec. 30, 2002, effective January 1, 2003, provides that "in case where a business operator does not have a continuous transaction price in a similar situation with a person other than the person having a special relationship or a general transaction price with a third party, or where the market price is unclear, the price pursuant to Article 98 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act or Article 89 (2) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act shall be the market price of the service." Thus, in case where there is no real lease case of similar similar real estate which can be compared to the real

(C) The Defendant’s calculation of the appropriate rent for the instant real estate pursuant to Article 89(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which was enforced from January 1, 2003, when calculating the amount of value-added tax for the first period of 1,209 and 1, 2000, is as stated in the above 1.B., and unless there is no proof by the Plaintiff as to the fact that there is an actual rent for the instant real estate that could be compared to the instant real estate, the calculation of the appropriate rent for the instant real estate in accordance with the above method can be seen as a reasonable method, and it cannot be deemed as a retroactive application of the statutes or retroactive taxation.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(b) Value-added tax for two years 200; and

(1) The parties' assertion

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

1) According to Article 50 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act which was applied at the time, the price formed in normal transactions with persons other than the person in a special relationship with the business operator shall be deemed the market price of services for which unfair practices are denied. However, the defendant, on the ground of Article 50 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act which was amended by Presidential Decree No. 17827, Dec. 30, 2002, which was enforced from January 1, 2003, imposed a tax by taking the rent calculated pursuant to Article 89 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree

2) According to Article 26(1) and (2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act and Article 74-3(4)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, a simplified taxable person shall pay an amount equivalent to 30/100 (3%) of the market price of services supplied for the second period of 2000. The said disposition of imposition was unlawful since the said 10% tax rate was applied.

(B) Defendant’s assertion

1) The above disposition imposing rent calculated pursuant to Article 89 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act as the tax base does not contravene the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition.

2) The above disposition is calculated by applying the tax rate of 10% to the amount calculated by multiplying the tax base by the added-value ratio of 20/100 (2%) under Article 6 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree. Therefore, there is no error in the calculation of

(2) Determination

(A) Is contrary to the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition

2. On the grounds as described in paragraph (1)(2), the imposition of value-added tax for the second year 2000 does not violate the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(B) Whether there was an error in the application of the tax rate

Article 74-3 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 6460 of Apr. 7, 2001) provides that "for a simplified taxable person, the amount calculated in the formula prescribed by Presidential Decree of 10/100 to 50/100 of the average value-added ratio, etc. by type of business reported for three years immediately preceding the X for the supply price in the relevant taxable period, shall be the payable tax amount, taking into account the value-added ratio, etc. of the relevant type of business prescribed by Presidential Decree," and Article 74-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17041 of Dec. 29, 200) provides that "The value-added ratio of the relevant type of business prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 26 (2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act means 30/100 in the case of a real estate rental business, etc., regardless of Article 161 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree, Article 2030-4 of the said Act.

According to the above provisions, the value-added rate of 20/100 shall apply to the calculation of the payable tax amount of the value-added tax for the real estate rental business operator, among simplified taxable persons.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not apply the added value ratio to the proceeds from supply in the pertinent taxable period is without merit.

(c) Value-added tax for the period of 1,201;

(1) The parties' assertion

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

1) Article 50(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the market price stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 13(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, the continuous transaction price between third parties, or the general transaction price between third parties, in the absence of the above price or where the market price is unclear, Article 9(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act or Article 89(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the calculation of the market price. Article 89(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the calculation of the market price. Article 89(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which is similar to the transaction in question, is based on the price calculated by applying the appraisal corporation’s appraisal value, the rent calculated by applying Articles 38, 39, and 61 through 64 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act in order where the market price is unclear.

2) According to Article 26(1) and (2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act, Article 74-3(4)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Value-Added Tax Act, which was applicable at the time, Article 26(1) and (2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act, Article 74-3(4)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that a simplified taxable person shall pay an amount equivalent to 30/100 (3

(B) Defendant’s assertion

1) The imposition of value-added tax for the first and second years of 201 based on the rent calculated pursuant to Article 89(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act does not violate the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition.

2) There is no error in the calculation of the amount of value-added tax for the first and second period of 201.

(2) Determination

(A) Is contrary to the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition

Article 50 (1) 1 and 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 17460 of Dec. 31, 2001) provides that “The continuous trade price or general trade price between persons other than those having a special relationship under each subparagraph of Article 13 (1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act shall be the price under Article 98 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act or Article 89 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act if the above price does not exist or is unclear,” and Article 98 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 17456 of Dec. 31, 201) provides that “The former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 17460 of the Corporate Tax Act) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the calculation of the market price of the assets purchased from a specially related person or transferred assets to a person under a special relationship with the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. 20.

However, only the method of calculating the market price of land and buildings under Article 61 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is stipulated, and there is no provision regarding the method of calculating the rent of land and buildings.

Therefore, in the case of value-added tax for the first and second years of 2001, when the lessor of real estate does not engage in a normal transaction with a person who is not a specially related party, it is sufficient to take into account all the circumstances such as the land category, location, surrounding environment, utilization status, and use method of the pertinent land, and the region and individual factors forming the price of the real estate, and to take into account the price calculated by the reasonable method, such as investigating and examining the adequate transaction price of similar buildings within the neighboring and similar areas.

Therefore, for the same reasons as the above 2. A. (2), the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(B) Whether there was an error in the application of the tax rate

Article 1661 and Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17041, Dec. 29, 2000) provides that "in applying the amended provisions of Article 74-3 (4), from February 2, 2000 to December 31, 203, the category of business under Article 74-3 (4) 2 shall apply to the value-added rate of 22.5/100 in the taxable period of 201."

According to the above provisions, among simplified taxable persons, the value-added rate of 22.5/100 shall apply to the calculation of the tax amount of the value-added tax for the real estate rental business operator in 1/2001 and 2/100.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not apply the added value ratio to the proceeds from supply in the pertinent taxable period is without merit.

(d) Disposition of imposition of global income tax for the year 199 through 2003.

(1) The parties' assertion

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

1) Article 41(2) of the former Income Tax Act applied at the time of 1999; Article 98(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act applies mutatis mutandis to the calculation of the income amount at the time of denying unfair acts. Article 89(3) through (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the amount calculated by multiplying the amount obtained by subtracting security deposits or deposits received in connection with the provision of assets from the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the market value of the pertinent assets by the fixed deposit interest rate (Article 89(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act or the larger amount of the total amount of asset maintenance, such as depreciation costs and public charges, repair costs, etc. (Article 1) shall be deemed as the market value of real estate rent without any ground. Thus, the defendant was deemed as the

2) In calculating the market price of the instant real estate, the Defendant calculated the land based on the officially assessed individual land price, and the building based on the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and there is no basis for calculating the market price of the building based on the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and thus, each income tax imposition for the year 199 through 2003 is unlawful.

3) In the calculation of the rent for real estate, when subparagraph 1 above is applied, the amount converted by applying the market rent rate to the monthly rent is applied, but the defendant calculated only the nominal security deposit as security deposit or security deposit, and thus, the imposition of each income tax for the year 199 through 2003 is unlawful.

(B) Defendant’s assertion

1) Article 89(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which was applied at the time of 199, does not accord to the Plaintiff even if the market price of the real estate rent is the larger of the amounts under subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 89 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and thus, deeming the amount

2) According to Article 89(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, where the market price is unclear, the market price assessed by applying mutatis mutandis the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act shall be determined in the order of the appraised value by an appraisal corporation, and the value assessed by applying mutatis mutandis the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act. The method of evaluating buildings under the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act is the value publicly notified in consideration of the new construction price, new construction year, use, structure, etc. of the building, and the value is low when the actual market

3) Article 25(1) of the former Income Tax Act and Article 53(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act are deemed provisions for calculating the deemed rent at the time of field investigation, and Article 25(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provide that the amount calculated by the prescribed formula by applying the fixed deposit interest rate to the amount obtained by deducting the amount equivalent to the construction cost of real estate for rent from the rental deposit in the case of receiving a rental deposit from the market rent, notwithstanding the market rent rate, shall be included in the total amount of income. The income equivalent to the above deemed rent is different in nature and calculation from the monthly rent actually earned under the agreement between the parties. Thus, in calculating the amount of income from real estate rent, it shall

(2) Determination

(A) Whether calculating the market price of the instant real estate pursuant to Article 89(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is unlawful

Article 98 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16664 of Dec. 31, 1999) which was delegated by Article 41 (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 6051 of Dec. 28, 1999) which was applied at the time of 199 applies mutatis mutandis to Article 89 (3) through (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16658 of Dec. 31, 199). Article 89 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides for the amount of income at the time of denial of unfair acts within the scope of the scope of the amount calculated by multiplying the fixed deposit interest rate by the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the market value of the relevant assets less the deposit or deposit received in connection with provision of the assets (Article 16664 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act).

According to the above provisions, in cases where the amount under Article 89(4)1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is deemed the market price, which is the market price pursuant to the laws and regulations, and even in cases where a small amount is deemed the market price, the amount is deemed the market price, and thus, is not favorable to the Plaintiff, even if the Defendant, without comparing the amount under subparagraphs 1 and 2 above, deemed the market price as the market price, such disposition cannot be deemed unlawful.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(B) Whether the application of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is unlawful when calculating the market price of the building among the instant real estate

1) Article 98(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which was applied from 1999 to 2003, applies mutatis mutandis to the calculation of the income amount when denying unfair acts, Article 89(3) through (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which was delegated by Article 41(2) of the former Income Tax Act, applies mutatis mutandis. Article 89(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, where Article 89(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to the wrongful calculation panel, the amount calculated by multiplying the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the market value of the assets by the fixed deposit interest rate (in the case of the portion reverted to year 199, the above amount and the depreciation costs,