The head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the second quarter of December 1, 2017 against the plaintiff on December 1, 2017

###,###원(가산세 포함), 2013년 제1기분 부가가치세 ##,###,###원(가산세 포함), 2014년 제1기분 부가가치세 #,###,###원(가산세 포함)의 부과처분, 피고 □□세무 서장이 2017. 12. 1. 원고에 대하여 한 2012년 귀속 종합소득세 ###,###원(가산세 포함), 2013년 귀속 종합소득세 #,###,###원(가산세 포함), 2014년 귀속 종합소득세 ##,###,###원(가산세 포함)의 부과처분을 모두 취소한다.

Cheong-gu Office

A. On November 22, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government branch community living facilities (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 250 million, rent of KRW 158 million from November 22, 2010 to November 21, 2012, between November 22, 2012 and November 21, 2012, with the amount of KRW 17 million from November 22, 2012 and 60 months from the lease period (hereinafter referred to as “the lease contract in this case”).

다. ◇◇◇은 2014. 11. 25. 원고를 상대로 서울중앙지방법원에 이 사건 임대차계약상 임대차보증금의 반환청구소송을 제기하였고, 원고는 이에 대하여 이 사건 임대차계약상 임대료 및 이행강제금 등 지급청구의 반소를 제기하였다. 위 법원은 2017. 1. 13. ◇◇◇의 청구는 기각하고 원고의 반소청구는 일부인용하는 판결을 선고하였으며, 위 판결은 2017. 2. 10. 확정되었다[서울중앙지방법원 2014가합586516(본소), 2016가합529913(반소), 이하 '관련 민사소송'이라 한다]. 라. 피고 세무서장은 2017. 12. 1. 원고에 대하여 2012년 제2기분 부가가치세 ###,###원(가산세 포함), 2013년 제1기분 부가가치세 ##,###,###원(가산세 포함), 2014년 제1기분 부가가치세 #,###,###원(가산세 포함)을 경정・고지하였고, 피고 □□세무서장은 같은 날 원고에 대하여 2012년 귀속 종합소득세 ###,### 원(가산세 포함), 2013년귀속 종합소득세 #,###,###원(가산세 포함), 2014년 귀속 종합소득세 ##,###,###원(가산세 포함)을 경정・고지하였다(이하 피고들의 경정・고지 를 통칭하여 '이 사건 각 처분'이라 한다). [인정근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제1, 2, 3, 7호증(가지번호 있는 것은 가지번호 포함, 이하 같다), 을 제1, 2호증의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The instant lease agreement was terminated on December 17, 2013 by the time the time limit for the supply of services was to leave the instant building. Accordingly, the instant lease agreement was not concluded from December 18, 2013.

2) Even after the time of supply of services and the time at which the income accrued falls, the time of the instant lease agreement and the time at which the rent is increased by KRW 15.8 million, the rent was paid later, and the rent was not paid later. Ultimately, through the relevant civil litigation decision, the time of supply for services under the Value-Added Tax Act and the time of income attribution under the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Act and subordinate statutes became final and conclusive on February 10, 2017.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 shall be as shown in attached Table 2.

C. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

(i) the period of the supply of services;

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 7 and all the pleadings, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff provided a lease service to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu by not later than April 1, 2018, inasmuch as the lease contract at the time was not terminated and the contract at the time was maintained without termination, and the contract at the time was concluded on April 1, 2018.

(a) the time of supply for services;

(1) Relevant legal principles

According to Articles 9(2) and 16(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 29(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 22 subparag. 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 24638, Jun. 28, 2013; enforced as of July 1, 2013); where the time the provision of services is completed or the time the payment is to be made cannot be deemed the time of supply, the provision of services is completed and the price of supply is determined as the time of supply. In exceptional cases where it is deemed that the time of supply has not arrived even after the provision of services is completed, the value of supply is not determined at the time of the completion of the provision of services (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du9586, May 27, 2005).

According to the reasoning of the above disposition, the rent of the instant lease was determined as KRW 15.8 million per month from November 22, 2010 to November 21, 2012, and KRW 17 million from November 22, 2012. As seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the rent from November 22, 2012 to April 1, 2014 was determined as KRW 17 million. As can be seen below, it is difficult to view that the rent from November 22, 2012 to November 22, 2012 was determined as KRW 17 million solely on the ground that the lessee unilaterally refused to pay the rent of KRW 15.8 million after entering into the contract, and that the rent was not finalized solely on the ground that the lessee refused to pay the rent of KRW 17 million.

(1) Relevant legal principles

According to Article 48 (10-4 (a) and (c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26982, Feb. 17, 2016), in cases of income generated from the lease of assets, the payment date is set according to a contract or customs. The fixed date (a) is determined in dispute over the lease contract (excluding dispute over the claim of rent) and the amount corresponding to the rent for the past period that the owner, etc. is subject to adjudication, compromise, etc. is the receipt date of his/her business income. The above provision is based on the principle of confirmation of right, the principle of determination of the time of attribution of income under the Income Tax Act. The above provision is based on the management, control and objective of income in a specific case, and the time of securing taxpayers' money. In such purport, Article 10-4 (c) of the above Act does not provide that the relevant right should be paid at the latest when a dispute over the lease contract becomes final and conclusive due to the lack of income.

Even if the lessee is dissatisfied with the existence and scope of the obligation to pay the rent, if the lessee refuses to perform the obligation to pay the rent that has already been finalized, it is reasonable to apply the item (c) as the case concerning the claim for the rent that has already been determined.

(2) Determination

(A) According to the circumstances of the above disposition, since the rent of the instant building was set on the date of payment under the instant lease agreement, in principle, the date of payment of each rent shall be deemed the receipt date of the business income.

(B) In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned evidence and evidence as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6, constitute "litigation on the claim of rent for the US," and therefore, it is not possible to apply the above Article 10-4 (c) to the time of the receipt of rent for the building of this case as alleged by the plaintiff. ① The time of the time of the commencement of the auction is not explicitly asserted in the relevant civil procedure that the rent for the building of this case is KRW 15,80,000, not KRW 17,000,000, and there was no ground for the reduction of the rent under the contract, and the plaintiff's agent did not exercise the right to cancel the contract. ② Accordingly, in the relevant civil procedure, it was concluded that the lease of this case was effective until the agreement on April 1, 2014, and that it was difficult for the plaintiff to pay rent and the charge for non-performance after deducting it from the rent of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety, and it is so decided as per Disposition.