신빙성이 인정되는 입증이 이루어진 필요경비에 한하여 추가로 필요경비에 산입함 [국승]
Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap935, 2013
early 2009west4030 ( December 24, 2010)
additional necessary expenses shall be included only in the necessary expenses for which credibility is recognized.
A lecturer fee shall be additionally included in necessary expenses as it is deemed reliable in light of the suspect interrogation protocol, the e-mail exchanged and sent, and the sales in 2006, etc., and it is insufficient to recognize that other expenses have been already included in necessary expenses or additionally paid, and it cannot be recognized as there is no other evidence to acknowledge
Article 27 of the Income Tax Act
2013Nu15974 Revocation of the imposition of global income tax
IsaA
The director of the tax office.
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap935 decided April 18, 2013
December 3, 2013
December 13, 2013
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Purport of claim
The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax for the Plaintiff on March 13, 2009 is revoked. Each disposition of global income tax for the Plaintiff on March 13, 2009, global income tax for the year 2005, global income tax for the year 2006, global income tax for the year 2006, and global income tax for the year 2007.
2. Purport of appeal
The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.
The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax for the Plaintiff on March 13, 2009 is revoked. Each disposition of global income tax for the Plaintiff on March 13, 2009, global income tax for the year 2005, global income tax for the year 2006, global income tax for the year 2006, and global income tax for the year 2007.
1. Quotation of judgments of the first instance;
The court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the court's decision of the first instance except for the second instance court's order from 2007 to 2009, the second instance court's order from 2004 to 2007. Thus, the court's explanation on this case is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.