2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On January 1, 2008, the Plaintiff leased the 2 to 7th floor of the ground building located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”) located in 00,60-3,000, the 2 to 13th, in Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “the instant building”). On the 2 to 4th floor, the Plaintiff operated the studio and studio rental business (hereinafter “house rental business”) on the 5 to 7th floor, and the tax authority registered the studio rental business only for the portion of the notified unit business.

B. At the time, the Plaintiff prepared each lease contract (hereinafter referred to as "each lease contract of this case") between 00 and 50 million won for the second and fourth floors of the building of this case and KRW 30 million for the lease deposit, KRW 30 million for the lease deposit, KRW 13 million for the lease deposit, and KRW 50 million for the fifth and seventh floors.

C. From 2008 to 2011, total amount of 894,846,00 won (209,697,000 won, total of 241,707,000 won, total of 238,802,000 won, total of 238,640,000 won, and total of 138,000,000 won (208 to 2008 to 2010), total of 36,00,000, total of 300,000, 3000, 30,000, 30,000, 30,000, 208 to 36,005, 205, 206, 2008 to 4005, 209, 2006, 2007, 2004, 2008

D. From March 20, 2014 to May 22, 2014, the Defendant found that part of the Plaintiff’s global income tax amount was omitted, and issued a disposition of imposition of KRW 217,686,510 on August 11, 2014 against the Plaintiff, following an examination of the Plaintiff’s request for pre-assessment review (hereinafter “the initial disposition”).

E. On November 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection to the initial disposition with the purport that the rent for the portion of the housing rental business should be deducted from the income amount as necessary expenses, and accordingly, the Defendant submitted each of the instant lease agreements to the Defendant. Based on this, the rent for the portion of the housing rental business shall be deducted from the income amount, and the rent for the portion of the notified source business shall be deducted from the necessary expenses, and the rent for the portion of the housing rental business shall be deducted from the income amount, but the deficit incurred from the real estate rental business shall not be deducted from the total income amount of the other business income (amended by Act No. 12852, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) pursuant to Article 45(2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12852, Dec. 23, 2014; 2008; 2005, 308, 2017; 2008.

F. On May 6, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for the examination that “the two through seven floors of the instant building,” as the Plaintiff leased all of the lessors, to the effect that the rent of KRW 598 million for the housing rental business falls under the common expenses of the announced source business and the housing rental business, and thus, the amount divided into the announced source business based on the revenue amount by business division, should be deducted from the necessary expenses, thereby re-calculated the tax base and tax amount of global income tax.” However, on July 27, 2015, the said claim was dismissed.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. Organization of issues

In principle, Article 45 (1) of the former Income Tax Act provides that losses incurred from the relevant business income may be aggregated with other income amounts, and Article 45 (2) 1 of the same Act provides that losses incurred in the real estate rental business shall not be included in the income amount of other business, unlike the case of other business. Due to such provision, the plaintiff, who is concurrently operating the notified source business and the house rental business at the same time due to such provision, has a result that even though the rent on the lease contract is greater than the income amount from the house rental business on the fifth to seventh floor of the building of this case from 2008 to 2011, such losses may not be included in and deducted from the income amount of the notified source business

However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, if the Plaintiff actually leased the 2 to 7th floor of the building of this case from 000 to 000 upon the request of 100, the rent for the 2 to 7th floor of the building of this case can be divided and deducted in proportion to their respective income amounts as common expenses for the Plaintiff’s notified source projects and the housing rental projects pursuant to Articles 27 and 160 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the main issue of this case is whether the Plaintiff leased the 2 to 7th floor of the building of this case from 00 to 2nd floor of the building of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The document of “JJ published original profitability analysis” written by the Defendant’s side (Evidence A No. 3) states, without distinction of floors, that the lease deposit for the second to seventh floors of the instant building is KRW 350,000,000 and KRW 16,000,000,000 monthly, and the total income is KRW 4,2350,000 per month, and the total income is KRW 4,550,000,000 (the income from the housing rental business among them is KRW 6,45,00,000, KRW 30,000,000,000 when the number of employees is 30,000,000,000 won when the total expenses are 2,688,000 won per month.

2) The receipt that the Plaintiff paid the lease deposit of KRW 350 million to KRW 000,000 and received from KRW 000 is a total of four pages. Among them, the real estate indication in Chapter 1 includes “five, sixth, and Seven-story Housing” but the remaining real estate indication in Chapter 3 includes only the address of the instant building and does not mention the number of floors.

3) From 2008 to 2010, 000 reported only the 2 to 4th floor of the instant building with the omission of the 5 to 7th floor of the instant building from 2008 to 2010, and reported normally in 2012 (from 2008 to 2010, respectively 36 million won, 30 million won in 2011, and 276 million won in 2012). Meanwhile, the Plaintiff paid to 000 the monthly rent of 13 million won in cash on the lease agreement for 5 to 7th floor of the instant building.

4) As of the year 2007, the standard market value of the second or fourth floor (area: 52.33 square meters) of the instant building is approximately KRW 878 million (in accordance with the Defendant’s calculation, KRW 787 million) and KRW 5 through 7 square meters (area: 474.65 square meters) of the instant building is approximately KRW 938 million.

D. Determination

1) The fact that each of the instant lease agreements, between the Plaintiff and 00, entered into a separate lease agreement on the second to fourth floors of the instant building and the fifth to seventh floors, is as seen earlier.

However, the following circumstances are that can be inferred or known based on the background of the above disposition and the facts of recognition. ① on January 1, 2008, after renting the 2 through 7th floor of the building of this case to the Plaintiff on January 1, 2008, from 2008 to 2011, the Plaintiff reported only the 2 to 4th floor rent to the tax authorities, and concealed the 5 to 7th floor rent. The Plaintiff also seems to have operated the 5th floor rent business with the exception of the house rent business for the same period, and reported the 00th floor rent. ② Since the revenue from the 0th floor rent exceeds the 4 to 5th floor rent business, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to enter the 0th floor rent of this case into the 0th floor rent of this case into the 0th floor rent of this case and the 0th floor rent of each 5 to 4th floor rent of this case, it is against the concept of the 0th floor rent of this case to 7th floor rent of this case.

In addition to each lease agreement of this case where it is difficult to believe as above, there is no other evidence that the plaintiff and 000 won specified the amount of each lease deposit and monthly rent for the second to fourth and fifth to seventh floors of the building of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff leased all the second to seventh floors of this case from 000 to 350 million won of the lease deposit and monthly rent of 16 million won.

Therefore, according to Articles 27 and 160 of the Income Tax Act, the rent on the whole 2 to 7th floor of the building of this case shall be the common expenses of the plaintiff's publicly notified source business and the house rental business, in proportion to their respective revenues and shall be deducted as the necessary expenses for each business. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion

2) However, the issue of whether a disposition is lawful is determined depending on whether it exceeds a legitimate tax amount. The parties concerned may submit objective tax bases and materials, as well as allegations and materials, which are subsequent to the closing of the arguments in the fact-finding proceedings. When a legitimate tax amount is calculated based on such materials, only the portion exceeding the legitimate tax amount shall be revoked, but if not, the entire tax disposition shall be revoked (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu13527, Apr. 28, 1995).

In the case of this case, the pertinent tax amount cannot be calculated on the sole basis of the materials submitted until the closing date of the argument in this case. Thus, the court of this case must cancel all of the dispositions in this case.

E. Sub-committee

Each disposition of this case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.

a