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

Each disposition of imposition shall be revoked.

A. The plaintiffs acquired and remodeled on November 29, 200, the land and buildings of 00-00 and 00 parcels in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as " XX monthly shopping mall") from December 1, 200 to August 18, 2004, and sold the store lease right after purchasing and remodelling the land and buildings of 0-0 parcels in order. In addition, the plaintiffs Sung-A shall be the land and buildings located in 0-0, Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as the "△△△△△△△"), and the store lease right was sold after acquiring and selling the store lease right after purchasing and remodelling the store lease right of each of the above shopping malls on November 29, 2004. The plaintiffs received the rent from the new lessee to purchase the store lease right of each of the above shopping mall, and recognized it as the lease deposit money and did not report the remainder of the lease right (hereinafter referred to as the "lease lease money").

B. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office confirmed the Plaintiffs’ tax investigation on each of the instant commercial buildings, as follows, that the Plaintiffs’ purchase price of KRW 11,347,112,00, and the purchase price of KRW 1,998,925,00, and the rent income of KRW 377,885,00,00 were omitted, and notified the Defendants as taxation data.

C. On August 3, 2009, the Defendants, based on the foregoing taxation data, corrected and notified the value added, global income tax, and corporate tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 30, 2009, but was dismissed on October 28, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 4 through 6, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) Since the funds received by the plaintiffs for remodeling expenses or the funds for the sale of the right to lease are of the nature of premiums, the plaintiffs shall return in certain cases, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that each of the above funds has been reverted to the plaintiffs

2) The Defendants determined the tax base based on the value of all the amount received by the Plaintiffs deeming that the amount of value-added tax is not included in the remodeling cost or the rent-sale price received by the Plaintiffs, and calculated the tax amount. However, the amount of value-added tax is included in the remodeling cost or rent

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Table 2.

C. Determination

1) Whether the object of taxation is the remodelling cost and the right to lease

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed in the evidence Nos. 2 through 9 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the amount of remodeling expenses or the amount of sales of leased rights received by the Plaintiffs for the transfer of intangible property value arising from the Plaintiffs’ business operation in each of the instant commercial buildings is deemed to be definitely reverted to the Plaintiffs, barring any special circumstances. Therefore, the amount of value-added tax, corporate tax and global income tax is subject to taxation.

In light of the fact that in relation to the lease of each of the instant commercial buildings, the lease deposit has been set separately from the Lieuling of legal relations and the selling price of the right of lease, and the plaintiffs receive the prop tax from the lessee each month, according to the lease right subscription form and the lease contract, the lease right sale amount has the nature of development expenses, such as construction cost, the interior cost, the advertising cost, and the advertising promotion cost, and both remodeling cost and the selling price of the right of lease have been received by the plaintiffs in the process of remodeling each of the instant commercial buildings and developing and selling them, it seems that the lease contract and the selling price of the right of lease can be operated in each of the instant commercial buildings which were remodeled separately from the lease contract.

Pursuant to the application for the right of lease and the certificate for the right of lease, the sale of the right of lease shall be decided by the plaintiff Sung-A at will and shall not raise or file any objection to the use of the right of lease. In the certificate for the sale of the right of lease, the plaintiff Sung-A shall endeavor to grant the lessee the right of lease so that the right of lease can be created early by making efforts to revitalize the virtual prices, and some lease agreements stipulate that the lessee may not claim the right of lease when the contract is terminated or cancelled. Therefore, it is impossible for the lessee to recover the right of lease against the plaintiffs, and the collection of the right of lease is made by the transferee of the right of lease or the lessee by way of receiving the right of lease from the lessee.

In general, the lessor’s receipt of premium in ordinary cases can be evaluated as being subject to a definite right under tax law if the lessor is deprived of the lessor’s opportunity to recover the premium by reason of the lessee’s transferee or lessee, such as the lessor’s failure to continue the lease contract during the period agreed upon due to the lessor’s cause attributable to the lessor. In this case, there is insufficient evidence to prove that there is a special contract or custom to deem that the lessor has the obligation to return the expense for remodeling and the rent.

O The case where the plaintiffs claimed the return of the rental right or the remodeling cost is insufficient to prove it, and even if there are such cases, it seems to be very exceptional cases.

O In supplying goods which are taxable objects of value-added tax, goods include power, heat and other natural power and rights that can be managed as tangible goods and intangible goods of property value.

2) Whether it was taxed as including the value-added tax on the remodeling expenses and the sales of the right to lease

In addition to the purport of the argument in subparagraph 1 above, in calculating the value-added tax on the remodeling cost and the rent for the sale of the right of lease, as alleged by the plaintiffs, it shall be deemed that the remodeling cost and the rent for the sale of the right of lease received by the plaintiffs are included in the amount of value-added tax, and the fact that the tax amount is calculated by dividing it into 1.1 and calculating the value-added tax, and the calculation of such tax amount is lawful.

3) Intermediate conclusion

Therefore, the instant taxation disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.