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

A. From March 15, 2015 to March 15, 2017, the Plaintiff subleted the instant real estate to KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 120,000 (excluding value-added tax) that the Plaintiff leased to B, “Seoul building C in Songpa-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The Defendant: (a) deemed the Plaintiff as a unregistered real estate rental business operator on September 14, 2017; (b) made business registration ex officio; and (c) imposed value-added tax of KRW 331,520, total amount of value-added tax of KRW 47,220, value-added tax of KRW 547,220, value-added tax of KRW 20 for the year 2015, value-added tax of KRW 1,086,620 for the year 2016, value-added tax of KRW 1,086,620 for the year 2016, value-added tax of KRW 1,047,720 for the year 2016, value-added tax of KRW 331,520 for the year 1,2017, and value-added tax of KRW 4,143,400 for the year 20.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On March 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 16, 2018, but was dismissed on October 8, 2018.

[Based on recognition] Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff merely acquired profits from KRW 320,000 per month while sub-leaseing the instant real estate, and thus, it cannot be deemed as identical to the case where the Plaintiff owns the instant real estate and runs a leasing business. Therefore, the Plaintiff is a simplified taxable business entity, and the Plaintiff is deemed to be a simplified taxable business entity. 2) Even if the Plaintiff is not a simplified taxable business entity, the Plaintiff does not recognize the input tax deduction received from the owner of the instant real estate solely on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have registered its business.