대여금 이자라는 원고의 주장은 이유 없으며 임대수입이라고 봄이 상당함[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap23245 ( November 04, 2011)
Seocho 2010west 1748 (201.05.04)
The Plaintiff’s assertion that interest is interest on loan is without merit and it is reasonable to deem it as rental income.
(1) It is reasonable to view the rent revenue as the rent revenue in light of the following: (a) increase in the rent deposit; (b) increase in the rent deposit; and (c) increase in the rent deposit to the lessee; (d) increase in the rent deposit; and (e) increase in the rent deposit; and (e) decrease in the rent in the monthly rent at the rate of 1% per month; (b) however, there is no actual delivery of the rent deposit increased by the lease contract; and (c) there is no change in the monthly rent or rent
2011Nu42231 Value-added Tax and the global income and revocation thereof.
XX Kim
head of Sung Dong Tax Office
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap23245 decided November 4, 2011
May 18, 2012
July 13, 2012
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant revoked on January 4, 2010 the value-added tax of 00 won for the second period of 2004 for the plaintiff on February 8, 2010, value-added tax of 000 won for the first period of 205 for the plaintiff on February 8, 2010, value-added tax of 00 won for the second period of 2005, value-added tax of 1 year 2006, value-added tax of 200 for the second period of 206, value-added tax of 1 year 200 for the first period of 207, value-added tax of 2 year 200 for the second period of 207, value-added tax of 1 year 200 for the second period of 208, value-added tax of 200 for the second period of 204, global income tax of 2005, global income tax of 2008.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning of this court's judgment is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the parts used for cutting, deleting, or adding as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
O Part 6, paragraph 5, "at the request of the plaintiff with the purpose of evading taxes," shall be followed as follows:
Before the formation of a lease agreement on January 1, 2004, the appeal court of the above lawsuit (Seoul District Court 2003Na55557) continued to be in progress since the time when the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the registration of the cancellation of ownership against the largestA, KimB, and KimCC (Seoul District Court 2002Gahap520), and after the lease agreement was made on January 1, 2004, KimB filed an application for the auction of real estate rent (Seoul East East District Court 2004MoMo7488) and the procedure was in progress, and KimB filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of ownership against the plaintiff (Seoul East District Court 2005Mo2606) and won part of the lawsuit for the return of unjust enrichment against the plaintiff, the procedure was in progress with respect to the compulsory auction (Seoul East District Court 2005Kadong District Court 2163).
O Part 6, Section 8, "ShH and Kim KK" of the same line of conduct, "ShH and Kim KK," written by "Shh".
O Of the 6th page 16 and 17, the following descriptions shall be added:
“5) On October 16, 2009, KimL, the president of the instant building, around KRW 000 and monthly rent of KRW 000. At the first time of moving into a commercial building in 2001, the contract letter was delivered to KimF at the request of the owner of the instant building in 2004, and 000 won was delivered at the time of returning the seal. However, in addition to the initial deposit, this was delivered to the tax official by preparing a confirmation document stating that “There is no delivery of KRW 00,00,000, which is the difference between the deposit and the contract deposit.” In light of the status of KimL and the above fact confirmation statement, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was formally prepared on January 1, 2004 at the request of the Plaintiff (agent Kim FF), and it is also difficult to view that the Plaintiff did not receive the increased deposit amount in cash for the purpose of leasing the instant building in lieu of the deposit deposit.”
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.