2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Three-minutes of litigation costs are assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

Gu Office 1)

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 of value-added tax for 2006 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 201; KRW 000 of value-added tax for 2006; KRW 000 of value-added tax for 2006; KRW 000 of value-added tax for 2007 against the Plaintiff on December 7, 201; KRW 000 of value-added tax for 2008; KRW 000 of value-added tax for 2008; KRW 1 value-added tax for 2009; KRW 000 for 200 for 2009; KRW 1-added tax for 200 for 209; KRW 1-added tax for 200 for 206; global income tax for 2007; and KRW 200 for global income for 200 for 200 for 200 for 200.

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 'OOOfladist' (hereinafter referred to as 'the instant building') located in AAA City DDdong 800 GGdong. The Plaintiff is running a real estate leasing business and parking lot service in the instant building.

B. As a result of the investigation of value-added tax on the Plaintiff from March 16, 201 to April 24, 201, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff omitted the total amount of KRW 000 in real estate rent and parking lot revenue in the return of value-added tax from 2005 to 2010; the Plaintiff was KRW 000 in the value-added tax for the first year of December 1, 2006; KRW 000 in the second year of 2006; KRW 1 value-added tax for the second year of 2007; KRW 2000 in the second year of 2007; KRW 1 value-added tax for the second year of 2008; KRW 200 in the global income tax for the second year of 2008; KRW 1000 in the global income tax for the second year of 2008; KRW 100 in the value-added tax for the second year of 200 in the global income tax for the second year of 2000.

C. On March 6, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 6, 2012. On June 26, 2013, the Tax Tribunal accepted the claim that the amount of cash input in which the source was not known calculated as the amount of income in the taxable period from 2006 to 2010, among the various allegations of the Plaintiff, should be deducted from the amount of income because the Plaintiff deposited in cash and deposited in the account or deposited in other accounts, and thus, determined that the tax base and tax amount should be corrected according to the results of re-assessment of whether the amount of income in the taxable period should be deducted from the amount of income in the above taxable period, and dismissed the remainder of the Plaintiff’s

D. Following the decision of the Tax Tribunal from July 22, 2013 to August 2, 2013, the Defendant confirmed that the partial re-inspection was conducted, which included 00 won of the erroneous amount of the revenue, 00 won of the substitute transaction, 000 won of the substitute transaction, and 000 won of the re-transfer after the withdrawal.

E. Accordingly, on August 19, 2013, the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff the first half-year value-added tax in 2006, the second half-year value-added tax in 2006, the first half-year value-added tax in 2007, the first half-year value-added tax in 2007, the second half-year value-added tax in 2008, the first half-year value-added tax in 2008, the second half-year value-added tax in 2000, the second half-year value-added tax in 2009, the second half-year value-added tax in 2009, the first half-year value-added tax in 200, the global income tax in 2006, the global income tax in 2007, the global income tax in 2008, the second half-year global income tax in 209, and each of the remaining taxes for global income in 2009 and each of the following dispositions (i.e.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The defendant, as well as the plaintiff's spouse and children, included the amount of cash deposit in the passbook in the name of the plaintiff's spouse and children, in the plaintiff's income amount, but it is unfair because it violates the basic taxation principle.

나. 원고의 배우자인 QQQ은 그 소유의 AA시 DDD구 KK동 1287에 있는 주택의 임대업을 하면서 그 임대료를 계좌이체의 형식으로 받기도 하고, 현금으로 지급받기도 하였는데, 임대료를 현금으로 지급받는 경우 원고가 이를 이 사건 건물의 임대료 및 주차장 수입금액과 함께 원고의 통장에 입금하였다. 따라서 원고의 수입금액을 계산함에 있어 원고의 계좌에 입금된 금액 중 QQQ의 부동산임대업으로 인한 수입금액 합계 000원은 제외되어야 한다.

C. Around December 199, the Plaintiff delegated purchase of 100 million won of shares at the request of the Plaintiff’s subsidiaries, who worked on the O securities, but since February 2007, when the share price fell and the principal loss was found to have been incurred due to the decline, the Plaintiff recovered KRW 33,100,000 from the Plaintiff’s Dong-in RedO from February 2008 to June 2010, and this also should be excluded from the Plaintiff’s revenue.

D. From June 20, 199 to May 2008, the Plaintiff leased part of the instant building to NaO in the amount of KRW 000,000. From August 20, 2003 to December 2008, the Plaintiff received only KRW 000, which is a part of the rent for 65 months from NaO. From August 2003 to January 1, 2008, the Plaintiff paid the above KRW 000 and the remaining 000,000,000,000,000 won after appropriation of the deposit, have expired after the lapse of the three-year extinctive prescription period. As such, the bad debt tax amount related to the above KRW 00,00, should be deducted from the output tax amount or included in necessary expenses.

3. Determination

(a) Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

B. Determination as to the assertion that the omitted amount of sales is calculated or the amount of global income is calculated in violation of the underlying taxation principle

1) If a taxpayer’s final return on tax base pursuant to the provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act includes an error or omission, it shall be based on the account books or evidence. However, if it is recognized that there is an error or omission in the details of the return by other data and that it is possible to conduct a field investigation, it may be corrected also by other data. On-site investigation is no specific method that may be objectively limited as long as it is based on the method of distributing actual income. As such, determination of the taxpayer’s total revenue by the method of investigating the amount deposited in the financial institution account of the taxpayer is an objective on-site investigation. In general, the burden of proving the facts in a lawsuit seeking revocation of disposition imposing tax should be borne by the taxpayer. However, if the facts alleged in the facts alleged in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process are revealed, it cannot be readily concluded that the other party is an unlawful disposition that failed to meet the taxation requirements, unless it proves the circumstances that the pertinent facts were not subject to the application of the empirical rule

2) 을 제3, 4, 11, 12호증의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, ① 2011. 5. 경 원고에 대한 부가가치세 조사(조사대상기간 2005. 1. 1. ~ 2010. 6. 30.) 당시 원고의 동거가족으로는 남편 QQQ, 장남 류OO, 장녀 류QQ가 있고, 관련 금융계좌로는 원고 명의의 계좌 56개, QQQ 명의의 계좌 47개, 류OO 명의의 계좌 43개, 류QQ 명의의 계좌 41개가 확인된 사실, ② 당시 QQQ은 ○○인 ○○○○으로 근무하면서 월 평균 *,***,000원 상당의 급여를 지급받은 사실, 그 외에 QQQ은 그 소유의 주택의 임대업을 하면서, 건물 1층을 월세 없이 보증금 20,000,000원에 음식점 용도로 임대하였다고 부가가치세 신고를 한 사실, QQQ 명의의 계좌가 원고의 사업장인 이 사건 건물 인근에 소재한 금융기관의 지점에서 개설되었고, 그 계좌에서의 입출금 또한 이 사건 건물의 인근에서 빈번하게 이루어졌던 사실, ③ 장남 류OO은 부가가치세 조사 당시 28세로 대학 졸업 및 군 제대 후 신림동 고시촌에서 수험생활을 하는 등 별다른 경제활동을 한 적은 없는 사실, 그런데 류OO은 어머니인 원고소유 이 사건 건물의 유료주차장 정산원으로 근무하면서 2006년 4,350,000원, 2010년 000원의 소득을 얻었고, 2010. 5. 6. 원고로부터 현금 000원을 증여받은 사실, 류OO 명의의 43개 계좌에서 1,300여회에 걸쳐 입출금이 이루어졌는데, 출처가 불분명한 상당한 액수의 현금이 입금되었다가 펀드, 국공채, 수익증권 등의 매수에 투입되는 형태가 반복적으로 이루어진 사실, 위와 같은 입출금 및 투자관리는 모두 이 사건 건물 인근의 ○○역 부근의 금융기관 지점에서 이루어졌고, 위와 같은 투자로 인하여 2006년 000원, 2007년 000원, 2008년 000원, 2009년 000원의 이자소득이 발생한 사실, ④ 장녀 류QQ는 부가가치세 조사 당시 26세로 대학원 재학 중이었던 사실, 장녀 류QQ 역시 어머니인 원고 소유 이 사건 건물의 유료주차장 정산원으로 근무하면서 2007년 000원, 2008년 000원, 2009년 000원, 2010년 000원의 소득을 얻었고, 2010. 5. 6. 원고로부터 현금 000원을 증여받은 사실, 류QQ 명의의 41개 계좌 역시 이 사건 건물 인근 ○○역 부근의 금융기관 지점에서 개설된 것으로서 다양한 액수의 현금이 입금되었다가 오래 지나지 않아 또다른 류QQ 명의의 계좌에 이체되거나 편드 기타 금융상품을 구입하는데 사용된 사실 등을 인정할 수 있다.

위 인정사실에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 원고의 남편인 QQQ은 ○○○○○으로서 매월 000원 상당의 정기적인 급여 외에 부가가치세 신고 내용에 따르면 그 소유의 건물의 임대로 인한 수입금액도 거의 없는 것으로 보이는 점, 원고의 자녀들인 류OO, 류QQ는 수험준비를 하거나 대학원생으로 부가가치세 조사 대상기간 동안 별다른 경제활동을 하지 않은 것으로 보임에도 불구하고 그 명의로 개설된 계좌의 수가 합계 84개나 되는 점, 그들 각 계좌 현금입금액에 대한 출처를 알 수 없는 점, 그 밖에 그 계좌의 개설지점이나 거래장소, 시기, 횟수, 규모, 목적 등에 비추어 보면, QQQ, 류OO, 류QQ 명의의 계좌에 입금된 출처가 불분명한 돈은 원고에게 귀속되었다고 봄이 상당하므로, 이 사건 처분의 과세요건사실이 추정된다고 할 것이다.

C. Determination on the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's spouse's total income amount should be excluded from 000 won

갑 제4, 5호증의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, QQQ으로부터 김QQ는 2005. 9. 22. QQQ 소유의 AA시 DDD구 TT동 1287 지상 주택 201호를 보증금 000원, 월 차임 000원(처음 6개월은 매월 000원씩 지급하고, 그 이후로는 매월 000원씩 지급), 임대차기간 2005. 10. 15.부터 2006. 10. 14.까지로 정하여 임차한 사실, 이어 심QQ은 2008. 7. 24. 위 201호를 보증금 000원, 월 차임000원, 임대차기간 2008. 8. 5.부터 24개월로 정하여 임차한 사실, 송QQ은 2009.5. 20. 위 201호를 보증금 000원, 월 차임 000원, 임대차기간 2009. 5. 21.부터 2011. 5. 20.까지로 정하여 임차한 사실, 김aa은 2006. 2. 26. 같은 건물 주택 202호를 보증금 000원, 월 차임 000원, 임대차기간 2006. 2. 8.부터 2008. 2. 27.까지로 정하여 임차한 사실, 또한 우OO는 2006. 10. 5. 같은 건물 주택 옥탑방을 보증금 000원, 월 차임 000원, 임대차기간 2006. 10. 11.부터 2008. 10. 10.까지로 정하여 임차한 사실, 원OO은 2006. 3. 21. 같은 건물 주택 지하층을 보증금000원, 월 차임 000원, 임대차기간 2006. 3. 31.부터 2008. 3. 30.까지로 정하여 임차한 사실, QQQ은 위 기간 동안 발생한 차임 중 000원을 원고 또는 QQQ의 외환은행 계좌로 송금받은 사실은 인정할 수 있다.

그러나 QQQ이 자신 소유의 AA시 DDD구 TT동 1287 소재 상가 및 주택 건물에 대하여 2005년부터 2010년까지의 임대소득으로 신고한 액수가 월세 000원이었던 사실(을 제12호증의 4)에 비추어, 원고가 주장하는 QQQ의 월세 합계 87,080,000원이 원고의 소득금액을 계산하는데 기초가 된 총수입금액에 현금으로 포함되어 있었다고 보기 어렵다. 따라서 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

D. Determination as to the assertion that an investment amount collected from RedO, the plaintiff's birth, should be excluded from 00 won

In this regard, it is difficult to believe that each statement of No. 7-1 and No. 7-2 of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 7-1 and No. 7-2 is difficult, and the statement of No. 8 alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s investment was in the Plaintiff’s department on the premise that the principal is guaranteed, as alleged by the Plaintiff. There is no other evidence to acknowledge the above assertion. Even if it is acknowledged for domestic affairs, according to each statement of No. 4-1 through No. 4 of the evidence No. 4, the above amount claimed by the Plaintiff is reflected in all, and thus, it can be deemed that the Plaintiff’s correction and notification was made again on August 19

E. Determination as to the assertion that 000 won of the rental fee claim for NaO extinguished by prescription should be deducted from the output tax amount or included in the necessary expenses

1) Each global income tax portion for the year 2008 and 2009

A) In calculating the amount of global income, the amount of bad debts equivalent to necessary expenses may be divided into cases where the pertinent claim has been legally extinguished and where the pertinent claim has not been legally extinguished, but where the accounting perception that the existence of assets is impossible to be recovered in light of the debtor’s asset status and payment ability, etc. However, only when the account book is appropriated as necessary expenses, the former may be included in necessary expenses for the pertinent taxable year. However, the former is naturally impossible to recover, and the former shall be counted as necessary expenses for the taxable year, regardless of whether it is treated as bad debts

(B) Comprehensively taking account of the Plaintiff’s statement and purport of its pleading No. 12 x 10 won x 20 won of the instant building x 100 won of the monthly rent of 00, 24 months (i.e., 00 won of the deposit, 000 won of the monthly rent of 000 and 00 won of the monthly rent of 000; ii) the Plaintiff’s claim was filed on July 27, 201 again with 00 won of the instant claim of 000 KRW 600,000,000 for the period of 00,000 KRW 20,000 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1065, Oct. 26, 199); and (ii) the Plaintiff’s claim was filed on May 20, 2008.

2) The portion of the value-added tax for the first and second years in 2008 and each of the first years in 2009

Unlike income tax and corporate tax, the value-added tax, which is adopted by the pre-stage tax credit system, has the form of transaction tax imposed on the external appearance of transaction, not the actual income. Therefore, the tax base of value-added tax is the total value of the supply of goods.

In addition, if an entrepreneur fails to receive the price due to the bankruptcy or bankruptcy of the other party after the entrepreneur supplied goods, etc. on credit, the entrepreneur shall incur economic loss as well as the value-added tax paid by the State. Article 17-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides for a bad debt tax deduction system that is applied by deducting the amount equivalent to the value-added tax not paid by the other party from the output tax amount to be paid later, i.e

In light of the above purport of the provision of value-added tax and bad debt tax credit, the Plaintiff may claim a bad debt tax credit for the first and second years of 208 and the first period of 2009, which is the taxable period in which the statute of limitations has expired, by submitting documents attesting the occurrence of bad debt amount in the first period of 2008, which is the taxable period in which the statute of limitations has expired. There is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff applied for a bad debt tax credit for the first and second years of 2008 and the first period of 209, which is the taxable period in question. Therefore,

(f) Calculation of a legitimate tax amount;

Of the instant rent, KRW 000, and KRW 000 has expired by prescription in 2008, respectively, in 2009, each of the above amounts should be included in the necessary expenses for the pertinent taxable period. On the premise of such premise, when calculating a reasonable tax amount, the global income tax for 2008 and global income tax for 2009, such as the statement in the calculation of the income tax amount, is KRW 00,000, and the global income tax for 2009.

Therefore, the part exceeding the global income tax of 000 won for the year 2008 and the global income tax of 000 won for the year 2009 among the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

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

1) The Plaintiff stated the date of each of the above dispositions on December 8, 201 as the date of the disposition on imposition on the Plaintiff’s complaint, and the global income tax amount for the year 2008 and 2009 as KRW 00,000, respectively. However, according to each of the above dispositions on imposition on the tax base for the year 2006 No. 1 and No. 2006, the date of the disposition on imposition of each of the value-added tax was December 1, 201, and it is apparent that the date of each disposition on the remaining tax base is a clerical error of December 7, 201, and according to each of subparagraphs B-3 and 4 of subparagraph 2, it is evident that the global income tax amount for the year 2008 and 2009 is a clerical error of KRW 00,000.