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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the first period portion for the year 2006 against the Plaintiff on June 5, 2014, KRW 000, value-added tax for the second period portion for the year 2006, KRW 000, value-added tax for the first period portion for the year 2007, KRW 000, value-added tax for the second period portion for the year 2008, KRW 000, value-added tax for the second period portion for the year 2008, KRW 000, value-added tax for the first period portion for the year 2009, KRW 000, value-added tax for the second period for the second period for the year 2009, KRW 000 for the first period portion for the first year for the year 2010, and KRW 000 for the second year portion for the year 2010.

A. The Plaintiff was a rental business operator who owned a building of 1000 underground floors and 4 stories above ground (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) among the manufacturing marks on the land of 10 OO-dong 1 and 10, and leased to AA on December 7, 2005 all the underground, part of the first floor, and second floor of the instant building to AA (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”) the lease deposit amount of KRW 00,000,000,000,000 for rent, monthly rent, from December 7, 2005 to December 31, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”).

B. As a result of the tax investigation on the Plaintiff, the Defendant issued 10 items of value-added tax on June 5, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not receive any rent from the lessee in relation to the instant lease agreement, on the ground that the tax base for the portion on which the Plaintiff did not report and pay value-added tax was omitted (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 23, 2014, but was dismissed on October 14, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On July 6, 2006, the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease contract on or around June 30, 2007, following the lessee’s delay in payment of two or more rents. Even if not, the instant lease contract was terminated by the notice of termination on August 24, 2010 and November 27, 2010, which was concluded by the Plaintiff. Moreover, the Plaintiff was only deemed to have suffered a significant loss after deducting all the deposit deposit due to the lessee’s delinquency in payment of rent. Accordingly, it is deemed that the lessee illegally occupied the leased portion after the termination of the lease contract and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have provided real estate rental services. However, each of the instant dispositions against which value-added tax was imposed on the premise that the Plaintiff provided services to the lessee is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

Even if a lessor’s termination notice of termination of a building lease agreement becomes an illegal possession of the lessee, if the lessee continues to use the building without ordering it, and if the lessor is also related to deducting the amount equivalent to the monthly rent in the future from the deposit while holding the lease deposit without returning the lease deposit, it constitutes a supply of services subject to value-added tax, and whether the lessee has actually received the price as long as he/she provided services to another person after receiving the price for the said services does not affect the conclusion of the liability to pay value-added tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du8534, Nov. 28, 2003).

First of all, according to the evidence No. 5-1 and No. 2-2, it is recognized that the Plaintiff notified the lessee on August 24, 2010 and November 27, 2010 that the lessee extended the lease term by the end of December 2010, notwithstanding the lessee’s default on the rent, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant lease contract was terminated before December 31, 2010, as the Plaintiff asserts, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Then, according to the evidence No. 4, the Plaintiff and the lessee concluded the instant lease agreement and concluded the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff that “if the lease contract is terminated due to the termination of the lease term, termination of the contract, or any other reason, the lessee shall issue an order to the Plaintiff within the expiration date, and if the lessee fails to perform his/her duty to specify, the Plaintiff shall compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the rent and expenses incurred from the lease from the subsequent termination to the pre-sale agreement (Article 20(1) and (4) of the instant lease agreement).” Accordingly, the Plaintiff agreed to receive the payment for the Plaintiff, even if the lessee continues to occupy and use the object after the termination of the lease contract due to reasons such as termination of the contract, etc., even if the lease contract was terminated on or before December 31, 2010, the Plaintiff’s subsequent lease agreement should still be deemed to fall under the supply of services subject to value-added tax. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the lease contract was illegally occupied by the lessee due to the termination of the lease contract in this case, or that the Plaintiff’s allegation is not justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

(c)