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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 198,690,510 for the Plaintiff on June 8, 2006 shall be revoked.

A. On December 21, 2005, the head of the ○○ Tax Office, upon conducting a tax investigation with the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff, did not delay that the Plaintiff leased BPC 107 and 201 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, Inc. (hereinafter “○○○○○○○○”). On the other hand, the head of the ○○ Tax Office, who was in charge of the Plaintiff’s tax investigation, was exempted from KRW 514,540,00 out of the total amount of overdue rent of KRW 694,540,000 from ○○○○, a lessor, and notified the Defendant having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s domicile of the aforementioned resolution on global income tax.

B. Accordingly, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s delay in the amount of KRW 514,540,00,00, which was reduced by ○○○○○○○○ was not used to cover a loss carried forward as a result of debt exemption, the Defendant determined the amount of income by including the equivalent amount in the total income amount in 2003, and imposed a global income tax of KRW 198,690,510 on the Plaintiff on June 15, 2006 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 2-2

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff did not actually conclude a lease contract on the instant real estate with ○○○○. However, the Plaintiff’s lease to ○○○○, a co-resident of the Plaintiff, to ○○○○○ and directly concluded a lease contract with ○○○○○○○ by lending the Plaintiff’s name, and even a series of subsequent transactions thereafter formed, Kim○○ lent the Plaintiff’s name regardless of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the actual lessee of the instant real estate, who acquired business income, is not the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition against the Plaintiff, who was merely the nominal lender, was unlawful against the principle of substantial taxation.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Registration of the Plaintiff’s business operator and conclusion of a lease agreement

(A) From April 20, 2001 to May 30, 2002, the Plaintiff was registered as the business owner of the mutual company, “○○ soup”, and the Plaintiff was registered as the business operator of the sub-lease business from December 1, 2001 to July 4, 2003. The Plaintiff’s business place was located in the ○○○-dong ○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong.

(B) On March 31, 2001 and July 2002, in relation to the instant real estate, the following lease agreements have been respectively prepared between the Plaintiff and ○○○○○○. The tenant column of these lease agreements includes the Plaintiff’s name and the Plaintiff’s seal affixed thereon.

○○ lease contract dated March 31, 2001 (No. 24-3)

- Term of lease: 2 years from the date of designation of occupancy;

- Lease deposit: 4 billion won

- Rent: 45 million won per month (excluding parking fees of KRW 10 million per month);

○○ Lending Contract (No. 5) around July 2002

-Term of lease: 5 years from the starting date of business

- Lease deposit: 4 billion won

- Rent: 66 million won per month;

-Management and facility usage fees, such as parking lot usage fees: To be paid to a person designated by ○○○○ or ○○○○○ by each month on or before the designated date.

(다) 한편, 이 사건 소송과 관련된 국세심판(국심 2006서3306) 과정에서 원고는 주식회사 □□□개발(이후 주식회사 □□□▲▲▲▲로 상호가 변경되었다. 이하 상호 변경 전후를 통틀어 '□□□개발'이라 한다)에게 이 사건 부동산을 보증금 3억 원, 차임 월 6,600만 원에 전대하였던 것으로 인정되었는바, 이와 관련하여 원고가 위 (가)항과 같이 부동산 전대사업자로 등록된 이후에 부가가치세를 신고한 내역은 다음과 같다.

Period

Details of report

Lease of real estate

Statement of Supply Value

Amount of tax invoice, such as parking fees, other than rents;

Sales Schedule

Purchase Tax Amount

Tax amount payable

Deposit

Monthly income tax;

Amount

Monthly Conversion

202.2 The scheduled date.

417,611,00

353,011,000

6,460,000

100,000,000

100,000,000

17,611,00

39,203,00

202. 2 Finality

413,868,00

308,390,000

10,547,00

300,000,000

100,000,000

10,390,000

36,796,000

203. 1 Of note,

480,863,000

474,615,00

524,000

300,000,000

66,000,000

78,615,00

13,102,00

guidance.

1,312,342,00

1,136,016,00

17,631,00

700,000,000

266,000,000

306,616,00

-

(2) Details, etc. of documents prepared regarding the lease of the instant real estate

(A) The ○○○○○○, Inc., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○○”), as security, borrowed KRW 4 billion from the △△ Mutual Savings and Finance Company as a loan to the Plaintiff’s claim for the refund of the lease deposit amount amounting to KRW 4 billion. In the process, each of the documents prepared between the Plaintiff and ○○○○, and △△ Mutual Savings and Finance Company

List of Documents

originator

Main Points

Jinay

Security Certificates for Lease Transfer

(3) No. 7)

Performance (Payment) Policy

(No. 15)

-

Bright Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. guarantees the repayment of the lease deposit from April 4, 2001 to April 3, 2003 by making ○○○○ as a policyholder and as the insured.

-

Additional Agreements on Lease Agreements

(No. 8)

○ Mutual Savings Bank

In the event that the △△ Mutual Savings and Finance Company has lost the benefit of the debt due to the mutual savings and finance company, the agreement between the Plaintiff and the ○○○○○ is automatically terminated upon the request of the mutual savings and finance company

Pledge Agreement

(No. 9)

In order to secure a loan obligation of KRW 4 billion to the △△ Mutual Savings and Finance Company of △△ consulting, the Plaintiff offered ○○○○○ as security a claim for the refund of the lease deposit amount of KRW 4 billion to ○○○○○○, and the ○○○○○○,

A notary public on April 12, 2001, at the law office, the law office, the law office, the notary public has a fixed date.

Consent of pledge

(No. 10)

○○○○

Schedule:

(No. 11)

-

(B) In addition, between the Plaintiff and ○○○○○ on April 5, 2003, a written agreement (Evidence B No. 3, hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”) was concluded on April 5, 2003. The main content of the agreement was that the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 180 million to ○○○○○○ out of the overdue rent of KRW 694,540,000, and the remainder of KRW 514,540,000, the overdue rent of KRW 514,540,000, should be reduced. Furthermore, instead of being exempted from the obligation to pay rent from April 1, 2003 to June 30, 2003, the Plaintiff terminated the lease agreement and completed the name of the instant real estate, and all authorities related to the burial in the said real estate should be entrusted to ○○○○.

(C) Subsequent to the instant real estate, the details of documents prepared in the name of the Plaintiff, etc. are as follows.

List of Documents

originator

Main Contents

Jinay

Notice

(5) No. 5)

○ Mutual Savings Bank

Inasmuch as the obligation of the loan of Doe consulting was lost due to the arrival of the maturity on April 25, 2003, the new mutual savings bank is likely to immediately terminate the lease agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and ○○○○○○○○○○○, and simultaneously pay 4 billion won to the lease deposit offered as security until June 16, 2003.

-

Notice of Termination of Lease and Request for Payment of Deposit

(No. 6)

Schedule:

(No. 14)

○ Kim

The plaintiff waives all rights and management rights under a lease agreement for the real estate of this case concluded with ○○○○○, lease deposit and facility premium for ○○○○○○○, and △△○○○’s development gives up all rights under a sub-lease agreement with the plaintiff.

(3) The Plaintiff and the ○○○○○○ shall settle accounts and pay taxes.

(A) Since then, ○○○○○○ has reduced or exempted KRW 514,540,00 among the overdue rent of KRW 694,540,00 in accordance with the instant agreement. The remainder of KRW 180,000,000 was paid as of July 10, 203. Accordingly, the settlement of accounts between the Plaintiff and ○○○○○○ was completed.

(B) Meanwhile, separate from the above overdue rent, ○○○○○○ received management expenses and design service expenses in relation to the instant real estate, 174,997,766 won in total. However, as of July 10, 2003, 60,900 won in this case was offset by 60,900,000 won in membership deposit following Kim○’s withdrawal, and the remaining 114,097,766 won was paid in the account of ○○○○○○○ through △○○○○’s account on the same day.

(C) With respect to the above two business registrations, the Plaintiff paid each value-added tax of KRW 6,460,00 on October 25, 2002, KRW 10,547,830 on January 27, 2003, KRW 8,503,910 on April 25, 2003. The global income tax also paid KRW 6,879,440 on July 3, 2003, KRW 10,687,460 on December 22, 2004, and KRW 7,890,080 on August 22, 2003.

(4) Plaintiff’s assertion in the relevant case

(A) The Plaintiff filed a request for the review of the legality of the instant disposition prior to filing the instant lawsuit. At the time, the Plaintiff requested to include KRW 514,540,00 in the necessary expenses, on the premise that it is recognized that the amount of KRW 514,540,00 of the rent reduced or exempted was included in the total amount of income as the gains from debt exemption. The Plaintiff did not separately express his argument that the Plaintiff lent the name to Kim ○, as in the instant lawsuit, in the name of the Plaintiff.

(B) Meanwhile, on March 16, 2005, the value-added tax was additionally imposed on the Plaintiff on the tax invoice received by the Plaintiff from ○○○○○○ in relation to the purchase amount reported by the Plaintiff as to the real estate sublease business, including the Plaintiff’s resident registration number, which was not the Plaintiff’s business registration number, and KRW 89,55,730,00 for the second period to 202 to 64,294,890 for the second period to 2002, and the first period to 25,260,840 for the first period to 203 to 89,55,730 for the first period to 203 to 200, and the Plaintiff filed

○ Reasons for objection among the written request for examination (No. 22-1)

In 2002, the Plaintiff, as a real estate agent, filed an application for business registration with the competent tax office at the same time as the commencement of the business, and submitted a copy of the business registration certificate to ○○○○, which is the customer. The Plaintiff received

According to the purchase tax invoice and the sales tax invoice issued, the value-added tax was faithfully paid and paid for each quarter. The Plaintiff must sufficiently verify the purchase tax invoice issued at the time of the return of value-added tax; however, the Plaintiff’s business failure to verify that ○○○○○, the issuer, entered the Plaintiff’s resident registration number, address, and name and issued and issued the tax invoice. This is because other management expenses, parking fees, and other tax invoices were issued and issued by the issuer, stating the Plaintiff’s business registration number and issued the tax invoice. Therefore, the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the purchase tax invoice for the rent was written in the

○ A statement on the request for review of the legality before taxation (No. 22-2)

The Plaintiff leased the instant real estate from ○○○○○○ for making soup, however, there was a fact that a woman with no business experience, unlike his own idea, was sub-leased the same as is the lease condition between the Plaintiff and ○○○○○○○○ because it was too practically difficult to operate soup. In such a situation, the Plaintiff was performing the duty to report value-added tax as a sub-lease in a situation where the meaning of value-added tax was not properly understood. In the lease and sub-lease, the Plaintiff was unable to obtain any additional profit, and thus, the Plaintiff voluntarily completed the normal business registration and submitted a copy of the business registration certificate to the lessor, and thus, all of them were treated normally, and the return of value-added tax was carried out on such premise.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 5, Eul evidence 2-2 through Eul evidence 12-5, Eul evidence 14-1 to Eul evidence 24-2, Eul evidence 24-3 through Eul evidence 28-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Generally, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of disposition imposing tax, the burden of proof as to the facts requiring taxation shall be borne by the imposing authority. However, if 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 illegal disposition that fails to meet the requirements for taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13894, Jul. 10, 1998) unless the other party proves that the facts at issue are not eligible for the application of the empirical rule. Therefore, the fact that the actual transaction subject to taxation differs from those already reported by the Plaintiff is under the control of the Plaintiff, and it is extremely difficult for the Defendant to directly prove such facts, and it is inconsistent with the equity between the parties, so it would be sufficient for the Defendant to prove that the actual transaction relation is identical to those reported by the Plaintiff in light of the empirical rule. Thus, the instant disposition imposing tax in this case is lawful, unless the Plaintiff reverses the fact that the actual transaction relation is identical with the already reported.

(2) Therefore, as to the instant case, several documents were created in the name of the Plaintiff in connection with the transaction of leasing the instant real estate from ○○○○○○○○ prior to filing the instant lawsuit, and these documents appear to have been duly established by the Plaintiff at the time, ② each lease contract made between the Plaintiff and ○○○○○○○ on March 31, 2001 and around July 2002 appears to have been prepared as being consistent with the Plaintiff’s genuine intent in view of the developments and details of the Plaintiff’s business registration in relation to the instant real estate. ③ The Plaintiff paid value-added tax and general income tax on the premise that the Plaintiff was leased the instant real estate from ○○○○○○○○○○ before filing the instant lawsuit, and ④ in the request for review of the legality prior to filing the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff did not assert that the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate to ○○○○○○○○○ prior to filing the instant lawsuit, as well as the Plaintiff’s assertion that it was based on the empirical rule.

On the other hand, as to the fact that the Plaintiff did not actually conclude a lease contract on the instant real estate between ○○○○○○, and that Kim○○ entered into a lease contract with ○○○○○○○○○○ by lending the Plaintiff’s name, the Plaintiff did not believe that each of subparagraph 2, subparagraph 4-1, and subparagraphs 6 and 8 of the above provision was acknowledged, and there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff actually set off a sub-lease contract between the Plaintiff and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in relation to the instant real estate and the design service charges, which were not paid to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in relation to the instant real estate, and some of the management expenses and design services charges that were not paid to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in relation to the instant real estate, and the remainder was paid to ○○○○○○○’s account through △○○○’s development rather than the Plaintiff.

Therefore, considering that the Defendant’s profit from debt exemption equivalent to KRW 514,540,00 belongs to the Plaintiff, the instant disposition, which was made after the Plaintiff’s corresponding value was included in the total income in 2003, is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion disputing this is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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