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

Cheong-gu Office

Each value-added tax (including each additional tax) stated in attached Table 1 attached hereto that the Defendant provided to the Plaintiff on January 2, 2015.

In the imposition of global income tax (including additional tax), each amount stated in "the tax column related to the illegal act" shall be included in the imposition of global income tax.

The part shall be revoked.

A. From October 00, 000, the Plaintiff is a person who runs a real estate rental business, etc. by making the location of 00 ○○○○-ro 00 (○○○-dong; hereinafter referred to as “○○ building”) owned by the Plaintiff under the trade name of “○○ Product.”

B. On 00.00.00, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract for lease on a deposit basis with respect to the management office of the first floor of ○○ building and the rooftop and rooftop space (hereinafter “instant building”) with a special relationship with the Plaintiff, aaa (hereinafter “aa”) with which the Plaintiff holds more than a majority of shares, and the office of management of the first floor of ○○ building and 102, and the office of rooftop and rooftop space (hereinafter “the instant building,” and when only the rooftop and rooftop space are separately referred to as “the rooftop and rooftop space”, each lease contract for five years for the lease term (hereinafter “the lease contract of this case”). Since then, the lease contract of this case has been implicitly renewed.

C. A. On June 200, aa entered into a lease agreement with △△△△△ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as △△△△△△△△△ on October 00, 200; hereinafter referred to as △△△△△△), around June 200, 199, on the location of the building at issue (hereinafter referred to as △△△△△△△), and on the location of the building at issue (hereinafter referred to as "the location of the building at issue"), the company at issue (hereinafter referred to as the "the location of the building at issue"), the company at issue (hereinafter referred to as the "the location of the mobile communications company at issue"), and each of the above companies was leased from each of the above companies until October 00, 200, by the end of △△△△△△△△△△△△, the location of the building at issue, until October 0, 200, and from each of the above buildings at issue, until the end of 00.a.

Deemed Rent

Rent (including management expenses)

Total

Rental deposit

Interest Rate

Deemed Rent

Dog Dog

△△△△

Address Address :

guidance.

E. From 0.0.00. to 00.00., the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff from 00.00.00., the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff leased the instant building at a low price to a specially related party Aaa from 000 to 000.0.0.00., the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff unfairly reduced the tax burden by unfairly leasing the instant building from the first half of 00 to the first half of 00.0.0.00., and that the amount of rent, including the lease deposit and the management fee received from the mobile carrier, shall be deemed as the appropriate lease deposit and the rent for the instant building, and the provisions of the wrongful calculation and calculation division shall apply to the Plaintiff: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17090, Feb. 1, 1990; Presidential Decree No. 17090, Oct. 1, 200; Presidential Decree No. 17090, Feb. 1, 2000>

F. The plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the above disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 00, 000. The tax court was a tax appeal.

the Board shall only have the exception of the management expenses, out of the rents received by Aa from the mobile carrier.

On the ground that it should be seen as the proper rent for the building of this case, "a on October 00, 000" re-audited the management expenses received from the mobile carrier, and then made a decision on partial acceptance that "the rent, other than the management expenses, is the appropriate rent for the building of this case and re-revision the tax base and tax amount."

G. According to the decision of the Tax Tribunal, the Defendant: (a) deemed only the rent excluding management expenses as stated in Table 1 as the appropriate rent for the instant building; and (b) applied the provision, which is the unfair act and calculation panel of the instant building on October 0, 000 to October 200, respectively, reduced or corrected each of the value-added tax (including additional tax) and each of the global income tax (including additional tax) for the tax years 2009 to 2013.

H. Since then, the defendant received 00,000,000 won from Aa for lease on a deposit basis, and did not report and pay the rent for the lease on a deposit basis, and the portion of the application of the regulations on the unfair act and calculation panel. However, it did not distinguish it, and all were recognized that the initial disposition of this case was made by deeming the Plaintiff as the application of the unfair act and calculation panel as the application of the unfair act and calculation panel. Accordingly, the defendant added 'the portion for which the plaintiff did not report and pay the deemed rent even if he received 00,000,000 won from Aaa, 'the portion for which the constructive rent was not reported and paid' as the ground for the disposition, and accordingly revised 'the unfair act and calculation panel' accordingly. In addition, the defendant revised 'the amount of the tax to be paid at the time of initial disposition by supplementing 'the amount of the tax to be paid at the time of initial disposition,' and finally included 'the amount of the tax to be paid at each of the above tax to be deducted from each of this case (hereinafter referred to ').

The relevant part is written in the attached list 1 "tax amount in relation to unfair practices".

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2 through 13, 19, 20 evidence, Eul 1 through 11, 14, 19 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Of the instant dispositions, the part regarding the application of the provision regarding the wrongful calculation shall be revoked for the following reasons.

1) Since the area near the ○○ Building was in distress, the mobile operator had inevitably installed the antenna of the mobile base station in the above area from the standpoint of the mobile operator. However, from around October 000 when the Plaintiff extended the 9th floor of the ○○ building to around October 000, the instant rooftop and rooftop space was the optimal place where the said antenna was no longer required due to the development of the mobile communications technology, and thus, the mobile operator had no choice but to lease the said building because the instant rooftop and rooftop space was the optimal place where the said antenna was installed. As such, the mobile operator had to set a rent higher than the surrounding building and rent higher than that of the neighboring building. Lease deposit and rent that the mobile operator paid to Aa was merely a temporarily formed market price due to the foregoing circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff leased the instant building to Aa on the basis of this.

In addition, the lease deposit and the rent paid by the mobile carrier to Aa include the consideration for the effort to attract aa to the mobile carrier.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff leased the instant building at a low price to Aa, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff unfairly reduced the tax burden.

2) Even if the Plaintiff assumed that the instant building was leased at a low price and reduced unfairly in tax burden, the adequate lease deposit and rent of the instant building should be calculated on the basis of 101 units of ○○ building located in ○○ building, such as the instant building. As such, aa does not immediately regard a lease deposit and rent that aa received from a mobile carrier as the appropriate lease deposit and rent of the instant building.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The ○○ building was a 1st floor and 4th floor at the time of new construction. The Plaintiff extended the said building to 8th floor above ground level around October, 000, and around October 0, 000, extended the said building to 9th floor above ground level. The ○ building is a chilling area in the vicinity of the ○○ building, and most nearby the ○○ building is a low-rise building.

2) Aa from around October 00, 000, leased 102 1st floor of ○ building and used it as an office and a warehouse. However, around October 000, aa entered into the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff on October 00, 00, when it was possible to install the antenna of ○○ Building in the instant rooftop and rooftop space as a result of the extension of ○○ building. Aa entered into the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff on October 00, 00, as seen in paragraph 1(b) above.

3) After October 00, 000, aa entered into a lease agreement with △△△△△△ and parts of the building of this case with each of the lease deposit amounting to KRW 00,000,000, the lease term from October 00, 000 to October 00, 000, the lease term of KRW 0,000,000 for rent monthly, KRW 840,000 for management expenses. In addition, around October 0, 000, the Plaintiff entered into each of the lease agreements with △△△△△△ and the parts of the building of this case with each of the lease term of KRW 0,00,000 for the lease term from October 0, 00 to October 00, 00 for the building of this case. Aa entered into a lease agreement with a corporation at issue and part of the building of this case as part of the building of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap's evidence 8, 10 through 12, entry of Gap's evidence 23, the purport of whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether the lease contract of this case constitutes wrongful calculation under the Income Tax Act and the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 41 of the Income Tax Act provides that a resident’s act or calculation is consistent with objective facts and is legally effective and lawful in accounting, and even if such act or calculation falls under the category of transaction that unfairly reduces the tax burden between the related parties, the purpose of the provision is to realize fair taxation by supplementing the substance over form principle by imposing tax by deeming that the person liable to impose tax was objectively reasonable if the act or calculation falls under the category of transaction that unreasonably reduces the tax burden between the related parties. Therefore, in light of social norms and customs, if a transaction between the related parties cannot be deemed as a normal transaction to be done by a reasonable economic person, and thus it is deemed sufficient if the transaction between the related parties is deemed to unreasonably reduce the tax burden, it is not sufficient for the parties to the transaction to have the purpose of tax avoidance or to have economic loss (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 8Nu5273, Jun. 13, 1989; 2009Du7462, Sept. 10, 2009).

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed based on the facts recognized as seen earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s act constitutes an act of unreasonably reducing tax burden, which is not possible if it is a reasonable economic person in light of social common sense and customs, and only received a deposit significantly lower than the market price from Aa during the first half of the year 2009 to the first half of the year 2014, and established a lease on a deposit basis as to the instant building in Aaaa, and constitutes an act of unreasonably reducing tax burden. Therefore, the aforementioned act constitutes a wrongful calculation under the Income Tax Act and the Value-Added Tax Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on

A) From around October 000 to October 000, when the Plaintiff voluntarily extended the 9th floor of ○○ Building, the Plaintiff was the optimal place for the instant rooftop and rooftop to install the antenna of the mobile communications base station since the instant rooftop and rooftop space was no longer needed due to the development of mobile communications technology, and thus, the mobile communications company had no choice but to lease the instant building with a rent higher than that of the neighboring building at Aaa and a rent higher than that of the surrounding building.

Whether the pertinent transaction is a normal transaction should be determined at the time of transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Nu5273, Jun. 13, 1989; 97Nu15821, Jan. 29, 199). Therefore, regardless of whether the pertinent transaction is a normal transaction price before or after Oct. 000, or after Oct. 000, the pertinent building’s reasonable time limit from Oct. 00 to Oct. 000 is the price formed higher than the neighboring building’s price, namely, the lease deposit and rent amount that aaa received from the mobile carrier.

B) From the first half of 000 to the first half of 0000, the Plaintiff created a right to lease on the instant building in Aaa, and did not receive other money than KRW 00,000,000 for lease deposit. However, Aa not only leased the instant building to a mobile carrier for the same period and received KRW 00,000,000 for lease deposit, or KRW 00,000 for lease deposit, but also paid a maximum annual rent of KRW 00,000 for lease deposit. The difference between the above lease deposit and rent that the Plaintiff received by the said Plaintiff is very large.

C) The optimal place for the instant rooftop and rooftop space to install the antenna of the mobile communications base station is from around 000 to around 000 when the Plaintiff extended ○○ building to 9 stories. However, aa acquired a right to lease on a deposit basis for the instant rooftop and rooftop space through the instant lease contract is later 00.00.00,000.00.00, the Plaintiff could have directly leased the instant rooftop and rooftop space to the mobile carrier without going through a Aaa, and even if sub-lease through a Aa, the Plaintiff could have been paid a reasonable car that corresponds to the market price of the instant rooftop and rooftop space from Aaa. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff paid a deposit for lease on a deposit basis from Aa to 00,000,000 won for the instant rooftop and rooftop space.

D) The mobile communications company leased the instant building for about 00 years to 00 years. It cannot be deemed that it was merely a temporary period with a period of 00 to 00 years.

E) As the Plaintiff himself is, the rooftop and rooftop space of this case was the optimal place for the installation of the antenna of the mobile communications base station, so the mobile communications company had no choice but to lease the building of this case with a higher rent than the market price of the neighboring building and the three mobile communications companies leased part of the building of this case competitively, it cannot be deemed that aa has made a special contribution to attracting the mobile communications company, and it cannot be said that the mobile communications company paid an additional rent to Aa as the consideration for such contribution to Aa, the other party to the transaction.

F) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not gain any benefit in relation to Aa, and that (a) faithfully reported and paid all national taxes on rent received from mobile operators, it is double taxation to impose taxes again by applying the unfair act and calculation panel to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff should not apply the unfair act and calculation panel to the Plaintiff.

However, as mentioned earlier, in the application of the provision regarding the wrongful calculation, it is sufficient that a transaction between the related parties cannot be deemed a normal transaction to be done by a reasonable economic person in light of social norms and customs, and thus, it is deemed that the tax burden has been reduced unfairly, and it does not have to be the purpose of tax avoidance or economic loss. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted without any need to further examine it.

2) In applying the provision regarding the wrongful calculation, the market price of the instant building

Article 41(2) of the Income Tax Act, Article 98(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and Article 89(4) and (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26981, Feb. 12, 2016) provide that in similar circumstances with the pertinent transaction where there is a price generally traded between many and unspecified persons other than specially related persons or between third parties who are not specially related persons, the relevant income shall be considered as the market price preferentially. Likewise, Article 29(4) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 62 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provide that the price shall be considered as the market price of the relevant transaction where there is a price continuously traded between the parties who are not specially related persons or between third parties in a similar situation with the relevant transaction. In applying the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Value-Added Tax Act, where there is a price ordinarily traded between the third parties who are not specially related parties, the Plaintiff’s claim should be considered as the market price of the first one year.

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.