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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on January 1, 2013 by the Defendant is revoked.

The registration of ownership transfer was completed.

B. On August 6, 2002, the Plaintiff’s “○○” jointly with ○○, ○○, and ○○○○○.

After completing business registration as to the housing construction and sales business of a trade name, the housing on the ground between March 12, 2003 and September 19, 2008 was constructed and transferred to a third party after the process of division as to the land ○○○○○ 89, 00, which is indicated in the preceding paragraph. The detailed details are:

C. On October 5, 2012, the head of the Goyang Tax Office: ○○-si transferred by the Plaintiff on August 10, 2005, and ○○-Myeon ○○-ri

89-7 Land and above-ground housing 89-11 Land, and December 6, 2005 89-12

With respect to the land 89-13, capital gains tax was imposed on the Plaintiff.

A. On November 6, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired the land of ○○ City, ○○○, ○○○, and 89 for the purpose of selling a new house by constructing a new house and completing business registration under the Housing Construction and Sales Business Act, and newly constructed a house and transferred it through the procedures for dividing the above land, and accordingly, the Plaintiff submitted a confirmation that the income accrued therefrom constitutes business income other than capital gains. As such, the Plaintiff’s act of transferring each of the above real estate constitutes an act of continuously and repeatedly supplying real estate, ex officio revoked the previous decision of imposing capital gains tax and notified the Defendant of taxation data.

D. Accordingly, on January 1, 2013, the Defendant’s division of value-added tax ○○○○ for the second term portion of 2005 to the Plaintiff.

In addition, since the supply of land is not subject to value-added tax, it was corrected and resolved to reduce 00 won of the value-added tax by excluding it from sales (hereinafter above).

The disposition of imposition of value-added tax ○○○ for the second term of 2005 remaining after reduction is 'the disposition of this case'.

§ 20.

E. On August 14, 2013, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for examination with the National Tax Service, but filed a request for examination:

October 1, 2013 was dismissed.

Facts without any dispute arising in recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is merely a business operator under the name of "○○", and in fact ○○○○ City.

○○○, ○○○ 89 Land newly built and transferred a house on the ground, and the instant disposition imposing value-added tax on the transfer of the instant land and housing on the Plaintiff, which is a mere nominal entrepreneur, is in violation of the substance over form principle.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

According to the statements in Gap evidence 2-1 to 3, the construction cost case filed against ○○○○, a joint proprietor of the "○○○○" (Seoul Western District Court 2008Kadan32016, Seoul Western District Court 2008Kada32016, and Seoul Western District Court

Between Won 2009Na2758 and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da95035) and ○○○○○ and ○○○○ in March 2001

(2) If ○○○○○○○○○-8 and ○○○○○○-9 were to be provided with ○○○○○○○○○○○○○-2 with ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○-2, supra, it is recognized that the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 320,000 out of the sale price to ○○○○○○○, and that the ○○○-2, supra, had been carrying out construction work. However, the following circumstances are acknowledged by adding up A evidence No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4 to the effect that ○○○○-2, supra, had been a real owner of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○-2, a real owner of ○○○○○○○○-2, a real owner of ○○○○-6’s housing, and that there was no evidence to acknowledge that ○○○-2, a real owner of ○○-2.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.