Article 98 (Dispudiation of Wrongful Calculation)

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

A. The Plaintiff owns a factory (office, warehouse) of reinforced concrete building 492.5 square meters and 365.25 square meters (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) on the ground of Gwangju-si ○○○○○-dong factory site 995 square meters and above ground reinforced concrete building 492.5 square meters and 365.25 square meters (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”). During the process of the investigation of global income tax on Kim Jong-hee who is the Plaintiff’s spouse from July 10, 2006 to July 14, 2006, the Plaintiff confirmed that the Plaintiff leased each of the real estate of this case to Kim Jong-hee without compensation and notified the Defendant of taxation data on September 11, 2006.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant calculated the rental income by multiplying the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the market price of each real estate of this case by the fixed deposit interest rate pursuant to Article 41(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act, and Article 98(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19890, Feb. 28, 2007) by the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the market price of each real estate of this case pursuant to Article 98(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and Article 89(4)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, on April 10, 2007, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a revised and notified the comprehensive income tax as stated in the purport of the claim against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”).

C. The plaintiff requested a judgment to the National Tax Tribunal on October 11, 2007, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's request on December 14, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including each entry number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) From July 1, 1981 to December 31, 1998, the Plaintiff was engaged in the manufacturing business under the trade name called ○○○-18 from ○○○○-dong, Seoul to ○○○○○○○-18, and was engaged in the manufacturing business. On September 30, 1999, the Plaintiff transferred a factory, such as gold-type manufacturing equipment, etc., which existed in each of the instant real estate, to ○○○, the Plaintiff’s wife, and on September 30, 199, sold each of the instant real estate to ○○-dong, Seoul, to ○○-dong, which was to bear the costs of maintaining, managing, and expanding the remaining parts of the foreign export line, and thus, the Plaintiff did not lease each of the instant real estate to ○○-hee without compensation.

2) Even if the Plaintiff leased each of the instant real estate to Kim○-hee free of charge, since the Plaintiff extended the area of 365.25 square meters on the second floor among the instant real estate without permission, it shall be included in the calculation standards for rental income of only 492.5 square meters on the first floor except this part, and since each of the instant real estate was not adequately reflected in determining the tax base, such as the market price of each of the instant real estate, each of the instant dispositions was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 41 (Calculation by Wrongful Acts)

Article 98 (Dispudiation of Wrongful Calculation)

Article 89 (Scope of Market Price, etc. of Corporate Tax)

C. Determination

1) Whether the grounds for the disposition are lawful

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in Gap evidence 3 through 6, Eul evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 7-1, and Eul evidence 7-1, the plaintiff discontinued his business due to a non-business depression while carrying on the manufacturing business under the trade name of "○○○○-18 from July 1, 1981 to December 31, 198, 198. The plaintiff transferred gold manufacturing equipment located in "○○-18, ○○-dong, Seoul, ○○-dong, ○○○-18, and the plaintiff continued to operate the manufacturing business from "O○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-18, and thus, the plaintiff continued to lease the real estate from "O○○-dong, ○○, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-198, on the condition that the plaintiff continued to carry on the manufacturing business from "O○-dong, ○○-do," "the real estate rent of this case was not received from "19."

As the above facts, the obligation under the instant lease agreement, as the lessor, to the Plaintiff, is in a quid pro quo relationship with the Plaintiff’s obligation to deliver each of the instant real estate, and is deemed an incidental obligation to be observed by Kim○-hee in the instant lease agreement, and does not seem to substitute for the obligation to pay rent for Kim○-hee. Therefore, in this case where there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff received any monetary profit, etc. from Kim○-hee in addition to the performance of the above conditions, the Plaintiff provided the instant real estate, which is an asset, to Kim○-hee without compensation, in addition to the performance of the above conditions, the Plaintiff is deemed to have received any monetary profit, etc. under the pretext of rent. Therefore, the grounds for each of the instant dispositions, which the Defendant revoked the comprehensive income tax against the Plaintiff by denying the wrongful calculation pursuant to

2) Whether the calculation of global income tax base is lawful

Of the instant real estate, the fact that each of the instant real estate consists of a building consisting of a reinforced concrete building 1-story factory (office office, warehouse), 492.5 square meters and a steel framed 2-story factory (ware), 365.25 square meters, is as seen earlier. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff, at the time of leasing each of the instant real estate to Kim Jong-hee on March 30, 1999, indicated the total floor area of each of the instant real estate as 857.75 square meters, among the instant real estate, at the time of leasing each of the instant real estate to Kim Jong-hee on March 30, 1999. In light of the above facts, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was directly constructed before March 30, 1999, and that each of the instant real estate was extended to 365 square meters after the date of the instant lease contract.

In addition, according to the evidence from the above, the defendant is found to have calculated the rental income in an amount calculated by multiplying the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the number of real estate of this case by the fixed deposit interest rate pursuant to Article 89 (4) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, since there is no continuous transaction price or transaction price between many and unspecified persons in a situation similar to the lease contract of this case, and there is no illegality in the calculation process of the tax amount of each disposition of this case.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, each disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion based on the opposite opinion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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