(a) the portion of the remaining tax amount from the value-added tax of January 2006 or January 2009, which exceeds the legitimate tax amount, in the Schedule 'The Details of Taxation Disposition';

B. The portion of the remaining tax amount from the corporate tax in the business year 2006 to 2008, which exceeds the legitimate tax amount in the attached Form.

Each cancellation shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 9/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The part of the remaining tax amount from the value-added tax for the first period of 1 to 2009 out of the list of "attached Form" written by the Defendant on July 1, 201, the part of the imposition of the corporate tax for the business year of 2006, the part of the imposition of the OOO(including additional tax), the part of the imposition of the corporate tax for the business year of 2007, the OOO(including additional tax), the part of the imposition of the corporate tax for the corporate tax for the business year of 2008, and the part of the imposition of the OO(including additional tax) which exceeds each of the OO(s) shall be revoked (the decision of reduction in the imposition of the original tax on November 19, 2013) (the object of the revocation shall be deemed to be July 1, 201, which is the original disposition, and therefore the object of the revocation shall be deemed to be a clerical error).

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity established on August 22, 1994, and runs real estate sales and lease business.

B. From November 29, 2010 to March 31, 2011, the Defendant conducted an integrated corporate tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff. From November 29, 2010 to March 31, 201, the Defendant: (a) underreporting the sales proceeds of the OOO-Gu OO-dong 213-51 (hereinafter “the instant commercial building”); (b) notified the Plaintiff of the monthly rent and rental deposit for the stores installed by arbitrarily altering the use of the basement machinery room and parking lot, which are common areas (hereinafter “the instant common areas”); and (c) included the monthly rent and rental deposit for the stores installed by arbitrarily changing the use of the common areas (hereinafter “the instant common areas”), 456, 505, 65, and 66 stories in the gross income; and (d) included the amount of monthly rent and rental deposit for the installation of the OO-value added tax pursuant to the alteration of the use of the underground floor and the voluntary parking lot in deductible expenses; and (c) notified the Plaintiff of the first tax amount of 71.

C. (1) On September 23, 2011, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for adjudication on September 23, 201, and on November 6, 2013, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that “I would not underreporting the sales revenue amount of the instant commercial building,” and that “I would correct the tax base and tax amount by recalculationing the rental revenue amount pursuant to the purport of the judgment on return of unjust enrichment (Supreme Court Decision 2013Da5169 Decided April 12, 2013).”

(2) Accordingly, as indicated in the separate sheet on November 19, 2013, the Defendant only cancelled part of the disposition and became to have left only the portion indicated in the column of "amount of remaining taxes" (hereinafter referred to as the "amount of remaining taxes"), as stated in the separate sheet on July 1, 201, each of the disposition of imposition of value-added tax in this case, and the disposition of imposition of the corporate tax in this case, "the disposition of imposition of value-added tax in this case", and "the disposition of this case" in this case).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 12 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① The Defendant determined that “the Plaintiff leased No. 456 of the instant commercial building to BB, No. 505 of the fifth floor, No. 505 of the CCC, No. 65 of the 6th floor, and No. 6 of the 6th floor to EE, respectively.” However, the Plaintiff did not conclude a lease agreement with BB, CCC, DD, EE, and the total rent for the instant common area was reported and paid as corporate tax, and there was no amount of omission in sales, and even if there was no amount of the rent for the instant common area, the amount should be recognized as losses, considering the fact that the Plaintiff used it for management expenses or non-OOO in accordance with the purport of the relevant judgment, and the imposition disposition of the value-added tax in the instant commercial building, the imposition disposition of the corporate tax in the business year 2006, the imposition disposition of the OO, the imposition disposition of corporate tax in the business year 207, and the amount exceeding the OO (including additional tax).

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On August 14, 2009, the management body of the instant commercial building (hereinafter referred to as the “management body”) filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff sold or leased the instant common area to FF, etc. and received deposit, monthly rent, and management expenses.” On November 11, 2010, the management body rendered a judgment of the Seoul High Court (201Na346) that “the Plaintiff shall pay OOOO and delay damages to the management body,” and that “the Plaintiff shall pay OOOO and delay damages to the management body,” which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Seoul High Court (2009Da92895) on December 5, 2012, 2013 (201Da5169).

According to the Seoul High Court's decision, the revenue earned by the Plaintiff from the lease of the common area is 35% of the Plaintiff's shares during the lease period, such as "the details of recognition of unjust enrichment related to the lease of the common area", and the unjust enrichment gained from the lease of the common area in this case is OO (=OOO x 65%).

(2) The Plaintiff reported value-added tax to the Defendant as follows.

Reporting Period

Amount

From April 1, 2008 to June 30, 2008

Amount for issuance of tax invoices

OOOE

Other

OOOE

From July 1, 2008 to September 30, 2008

Amount for issuance of tax invoices

OOOE

Other

OOOE

From October 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008

Amount for issuance of tax invoices

OOOE

Other

OOOE

From January 1, 2009 to March 31, 2009

Amount for issuance of tax invoices

OOOE

Other

OOOE

From April 1, 2009 to June 30, 2009

Amount for issuance of tax invoices

OOOE

Other

OOOE

originator

Details

CCC

From around 2006 to October 2008, the commercial building of this case was used as a warehouse and paid OOO0 won monthly.

GG

From May 2005 to June 2009, when entering into a verbal lease agreement with the Plaintiff on subparagraph 505 of the commercial building of this case and used it as a warehouse, the Plaintiff paid KRW KRW 00 per month from May 2005 to March 2009 and KRW 00 per month from April 2009 to June 2009, and did not receive a tax invoice.

DD

From December 2002 to March 2009, the 6th floor of the shopping mall of this case was used in the OO or OO or 000 won of lease deposit. Monthly rent paid directly to employees in cash, and received some receipts.

EE

From 208 to 2009, 6th floor of the commercial building of this case was used as OOO or OO or 6th floor of this case.

(3) The CCC, GG (CCC’s husband), DD, and EE have prepared to the Defendant a written confirmation as follows:

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 10, 13 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 2 and 5 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Omission of the lease proceeds from Nos. 456, 505, 65, and 66 of the instant commercial building

According to the confirmation letter of CCC, GG, DD, and EE preparation, CCC and GG enter into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on subparagraph 505 of the commercial building of this case from May 2005 to June 2009, and used it as a warehouse and paid the Plaintiff the monthly OOO from May 2005 to March 2009 to June 2009 as the monthly OOOO, from April 2009 to June 5, 2009; DDR entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on subparagraph 5 of the commercial building of this case; from December 2002 to March 2009 to March 6, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on subparagraph 6 of the commercial building of this case and paid the Plaintiff KRW 1 million from May 200 to June 206 to June 200, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 600,000 from May 6, 2008.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that "BB entered into a lease agreement with the plaintiff 456 of the commercial building of this case and paid the plaintiff monthly rent to the plaintiff from December 2001 to August 89" as stated in the Seoul Central District Court Decision (2009Gahap92895) and that the sum of monthly rent and management expenses was omitted from reporting. However, according to the Seoul High Court Decision (201Na346) which was the appellate court (201Na346), considering that the rent revenue from BB was excluded from unjust enrichment (not stated in the grounds excluded from the judgment), there is no other evidence to verify the lease of BB, the only entry in the Seoul Central District Court Decision of Seoul Central District Court alone is insufficient to acknowledge the rent of the commercial building of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(2) Omission of the lease proceeds for the common areas of this case

(A) Even if a tax suit is not bound by the facts recognized in a civil trial, the facts which have been established in the relevant civil case are significant evidence unless there are special circumstances.

In the lawsuit for the return of unjust enrichment brought by the Health Team and the management body against the instant case, the Plaintiff recognized that “the Plaintiff acquired profit from the lease of the instant common area to FF, etc.,” and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff obtained a total profit from the lease of the instant common area, such as the detailed statement of recognition of unjust enrichment regarding the lease of the common area, as shown in the attached Form “the details of recognition of unjust enrichment regarding the lease of the common area,” and that the amount equivalent to 35% of the Plaintiff’s share ratio (i.e., the KRW 35%) was reverted to the Plaintiff.

(B) As to this, the Plaintiff reported and paid the total amount of the rent for the instant common area as corporate tax. However, the Plaintiff asserted that “it is an omitted amount of only OOOO which was recognized by the judgment after deducting OOO reported by the Plaintiff from the OOO which was the sales.” However, the Plaintiff recognized that “the Plaintiff did not reflect OOO of the rent in the outer upper area at the time of filing corporate tax return” (No. 3, No. 24), “A” and “No. 15, and No. 16 (including the virtual number)” as stated in each account alone cannot be confirmed as to the revenue of the instant common area, and it is difficult to find that the rent for the instant common area was included in the revenue of the instant case, and it is difficult to view that there was no evidence that the Plaintiff reported and submitted the change in the amount of the corporate tax and value-added tax to the Plaintiff’s share in the rent for 3% prior to the filing of the Plaintiff’s report including the above 3-5% increase in its own share in the lease agreement.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that "the plaintiff has used unjust enrichment as management expenses, so it should be recognized as losses." However, according to the Seoul High Court decision, the plaintiff's assertion that it was spent as management expenses was rejected, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that it was spent as management expenses.

(3) The scope of the cancelled tax amount

(A) In a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a taxation disposition, the subject matter of adjudication is whether the tax base and the amount of tax notified by the tax authority are objectively existing. In a case where the tax base and the amount of tax recognized by the disposition of taxation are excessive compared to the legitimate tax base and the amount of tax, the disposition of imposition is unlawful within the scope exceeding the reasonable tax base and the amount of tax (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6504, Mar. 28

(B) The lease profit portion of the instant disposition concerning No. 456 among the instant disposition should be revoked illegally. Accordingly, if value-added tax and corporate tax are re-calculated, it shall be as indicated in the column of “political tax amount” among the details of the instant disposition.

Therefore, the portion exceeding the legitimate amount of tax out of the remaining amount of tax from the value-added tax on January 2006 or January 2009 in the attached list of "the details of taxation disposition" is illegal, and thus, the portion exceeding the legitimate amount of tax out of the remaining amount of tax from the corporate tax on the business year 2006 or 2008 should be revoked.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.