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

Based on recognition, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 2-1 to 2-7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The Defendant: (a) leased 270 square meters from April 1, 200 to 200, Daegu-dong 000-0 factory owned by the Plaintiff to ○○○○, Inc. (hereinafter “○○○”); and (b) increased the rent from July 1, 2001 to KRW 2,50,000 on a monthly basis; and (c) unjustly reduced the Plaintiff’s tax burden on the Plaintiff’s income by providing the service for a price lower than the market price; (d) based on the wrongful calculation of Article 52, etc. of the Corporate Tax Act, based on the ground that the date of commencement of the actual lease of ○○○, Inc. (hereinafter “○○○”), which was calculated on January 1, 201, the difference between KRW 160,00 per rental deposit, KRW 00, corporate tax of KRW 160 per month, and corporate tax of KRW 10,00 per month and actual tax base of KRW 160.

B. Accordingly, on July 1, 2004, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing value-added tax on the Plaintiff for the first period of 1,224,150 won for the year 201, the second period of 2001, the second period of 1,713,870 won for the year 2001, the second period of 1,608,60 won for the second period of 202, the second period of 2003, the first period of 1,409,080 won for the first period of 203, the second period of 2003, the second period of 1,345,90 won for the year 203, the second period of 203, the corporate tax of 1,841,760 won for the business year 202, and the tax of 11,463,790 won for the business year 203.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful on the ground of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the above disposition. The plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case is legitimate. The plaintiff asserted that ① considering that ○○ engaged in the manufacturing business of saw-to-land, etc. at the plaintiff's factory and engaged in the manufacturing business, the plaintiff's ex post facto repair, etc., the lease deposit, etc. was leased to ○○○ by receiving some of his factory at a lower level, and such act does not constitute an unfair act and calculation, ② from April 1, 2000, not from 270 square meters, but from 10 square meters, from 135 square meters, from July 1, 2001, and ③ from 135 square meters, a part of the above factory should be leased to a third party, and thus, it should be the lowest rent from the lease deposit, rent, etc. which the plaintiff received from ○○ Government (representative ○○) and thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

○ Denial of wrongful calculation under Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act

(1) Where the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office deems that the tax burden of a domestic corporation has been unjustly reduced through transactions with persons with a special relationship prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereinafter referred to as "specially related persons"), he/she may calculate the amount of income for each business year of the relevant corporation regardless of the activities or calculation of the amount of income of the relevant corporation (hereinafter

(2) In the application of the provisions of paragraph (1), the standard for determination shall be the prices applied or to be applied in sound and generally accepted practices and normal transactions between persons without a special relationship (including rates, interest rates, rents, exchange rates and other similar rates; hereafter referred to as "market price" in this Article).

(3) Entry is omitted.

(4) In applying paragraphs (1) through (3), matters necessary for the types of wrongful calculation, assessment of market price, etc. shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

○ Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act

Article 88 (Calculation Type of Wrongful Acts)

(1) The term “case where it is deemed that the tax burden has been unjustly reduced” in Article 52 (1) of the Act means the case falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

6. Where money and other assets or services are provided with no compensation or at an interest rate, rate, or rental rate lower than the market price (shortest omission);

Article 89 Scope, etc. of Market Price

(1) In the application of the provisions of Article 52 (2) of the Act, if there is a price generally traded between many and unspecified persons other than a person with a special relationship or between a third party who is not a person with a special relationship, the price shall apply.

○ Article 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) The tax base of value-added taxes on the supply of goods or services shall be the aggregate of values falling under each of the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as "value-added tax"): Provided, That value-added tax shall not be included:

Article 52 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act: Scope of Unjust Consideration and Earry, etc.

(1) The unfairly low price referred to in Article 13 (1) 3 and 3-2 of the Act means the price which is the price which the entrepreneur is deemed to unreasonably reduce the tax burden on the value of supply of goods and services in transactions with a person with a special relationship with him/her.

(c) Fact of recognition;

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap's 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 18, Eul's 3-1 through 4, Eul's 4, 5-1, 2, Eul's 6-1 through 6, 8, 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

(1) The Plaintiff is a company engaged in mechanical manufacturing and parts sales business of industrial saws, real estate leasing business, etc., and owns a factory of 3,438.01 square meters of total floor area consisting of 00-0 ○○○○○-dong 00-0, and 2,987.82 square meters of building area (hereinafter referred to as “factory of this case”) (hereinafter referred to as “factory of this case”) 1,418.46 square meters of building area of 1,331.3 square meters, etc.

(2) On April 200, 00, ○○○, a person living together with the representative director of the Plaintiff, held office as the representative director. ○○ was holding 16.67% of the Plaintiff’s shares, and ○○ was holding 60% of the Plaintiff’s shares.

(3) On April 1, 200, the Plaintiff leased the lease deposit of KRW 5,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 200,000 from the instant factory to ○○○ on April 1, 200, and raised the rent of KRW 2,50,000 from July 1, 201.

(4) On the other hand, on July 13, 2004, the Plaintiff leased 84 square meters inside the factory of this case, including part of the above 270 square meters, to ○○ Government (representative ○○○○○) at KRW 13,440,00 (per square 160,000), monthly rent of KRW 1,34,00 (per square 16,000).

(5) During the taxable period of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff leased the remainder other than the factory area leased to ○○ among the instant factories to a third party is as follows. The principal details of the instant disposition are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff agreed on the lease deposit and rent for the entire leased area to ○○ Government (representative Park○) and did not agree on the average unit price of the lease deposit and monthly rent.

D. Determination

(1) Determination as to the assertion that the act does not constitute wrongful calculation

(A) "Calculation of wrongful acts" refers to the calculation of an act of reducing or excluding the burden of taxes when a taxpayer takes the ordinary rational transaction form by taking the bypassing act, the multi-stage act and other abnormal transaction form instead of a normal economic person. The purpose of the provision of the provision of the denial of wrongful calculation in the Corporate Tax Act and the Income Tax Act is to ensure fairness in taxation and prevent tax avoidance by imposing taxes on the taxpayer by deeming the income objectively reasonable in terms of tax law deemed unfair in terms of tax law, when considering that the transaction with a taxpayer and a person with a special relationship was deemed to have neglected the economic rationality. The existence of economic rationality should be determined based on whether the transaction is abnormal in light of sound social norms or commercial practices, taking into account the overall circumstances of the transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Nu7268, Sept. 4, 2002).

(B) In light of the fact that the rent of KRW 160,00,00 for each of the instant factories leased part of the rent of KRW 160,00 for each of the instant factories to ○○○, other than a person with a special relationship, during the taxable period of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff’s lease deposit amount of KRW 16,00 for each of the instant factories is about 11.6% for the above ○○, etc., and the rent of KRW 20,000 for each of the above ○○, a person with a special relationship ( KRW 18,518 for each year) is about KRW 11.6% for the lease deposit for the above ○○, etc., and KRW 740,00 for each of the monthly rent for the above ○○, etc. ( KRW 740 for each of the above ○○, etc.) is about 4.6% for each of the above ○,000 for each of the above 16,00 for each month.

(C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s act constitutes a case where it is deemed that the tax burden on the corporation’s income has been unjustly reduced due to transaction with a person with a special relationship under Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’

(2) Determination as to the lease agreement of the Plaintiff’s assertion

(A) From April 1, 200 to July 1, 200, subparagraph 4-1 to 16 (detailed statement on the lease and supply price of real estate for each business year), subparagraph 7-1 to 16 (detailed lease certificate), and subparagraph 7-1 through 16 (detailed statement on the lease and supply price of real estate), and partial testimony of ○○○○○○○’s witness at the first instance trial is difficult in view of the following facts: (a) Party 4-1 to 16 (detailed on the lease and supply price of real estate for each business year); (b) Party 7-1 to 16 (detailed on the lease and supply price of real estate); and (c) Party 1’s testimony of Party ○○○’s witness at the first instance trial is based on the Plaintiff’s assertion.

(B) Rather, the statement Nos. 5 (E. 5-1; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 4-2, Eul evidence Nos. 5-2, Eul evidence Nos. 6-3 and 6-2 are indicated in the real estate lease contract concluded between the plaintiff and ○○ on Apr. 1, 200 with approximately 270 square meters. The Plaintiff’s representative director, the Plaintiff’s representative director, leased ○○○ to ○○○ KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 2.5 million, and monthly rent of KRW 2.5 million, but did not prepare a separate contract, and the Plaintiff’s lease of KRW 1,418-46 square meters to 00,000,000,000 for KRW 70,000,000,000 for KRW 1,50,000,000,000 for KRW 1,418.46,000.

(C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(3) Judgment on the assertion on the market price

(A) Where an act with a person with a special relationship becomes subject to the avoidance of wrongful calculation, the amount of income arising from the transaction shall be calculated based on the price continuously traded with many and unspecified persons other than the person with a special relationship or the price generally traded between third parties who are not the person with a special relationship (see Article 52(2) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 89(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act).

(B) Since the lease deposit and monthly rent are equal to KRW 160,000 and KRW 16,000 which are applied between the Plaintiff and ○○ Steel (representative ○○○○○), ○○○ Steel (representative ○○○○○○), ○○○ NG (representative ○○○), ○○○○ (representative ○○○), ○○ mechanical board (representative ○○○○), ○○○○○○○ (representative ○○), which are not specially related persons, all of the monthly lease deposit and monthly rent are equal to KRW 160,00 and KRW 16,000, it is reasonable to view them as being generally traded at a third party. The lease deposit (representative ○○○○) applied to ○○ Government (representative ○○○) and rent (representative 142,875 won at the time of the ordinary conversion), and it is difficult to view them as the price traded on a daily basis.

(C) Therefore, it is legitimate that the Defendant calculated the reasonable rent by deeming the amount of KRW 160,00 as the market price and the monthly rent of KRW 16,00 per square year as the market price. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.