법인세등부과처분취소
1. On May 8, 2014, the head of the Defendant Kimpo Tax Office (including additional taxes) assessed against the Plaintiff B in KRW 68,673,310.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) leased and used all the 601-603 and 7th floor of the 6th floor of the 6th floor of the Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the her husband D before the representative director of the Plaintiff A, and paid KRW 628,585,568 in total as rent from 2010 to 2012.
B. As a result of the consolidated investigation of corporate tax against Plaintiff A, the Defendant imposed corporate tax of KRW 4,19,710 (including additional tax), corporate tax of KRW 47,506,290 (including additional tax), corporate tax of KRW 47,506,290 (including additional tax), and corporate tax of KRW 444,49,770 (including additional tax) for the business year of 2012 on May 7, 2012 on Plaintiff A by deeming that the appropriate rental fee of the instant real estate leased by Plaintiff A was in excess of the reasonable rental fee of KRW 270,410,50,507 and the difference exceeding the reasonable rental fee of KRW 358,175,061 (including additional tax) was distributed by Plaintiff A to D who is a specially related person.
(hereinafter “Imposition of each corporate tax of this case”). C.
In addition, the Defendant deemed that Plaintiff B donated 4,800 shares issued by Plaintiff A (hereinafter “instant shares”) from Plaintiff B, on December 11, 2012, as a result of the investigation of the change of shares against Plaintiff A, and imposed KRW 68,673,310 on Plaintiff B on May 8, 2014.
(hereinafter “Imposition of gift tax of this case”) D.
The Plaintiffs filed a petition for an inquiry with the Tax Tribunal on the grounds that they were dissatisfied with the imposition of each of the instant corporate tax and gift tax, but was dismissed on November 27, 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, evidence 1 to 2, evidence 5, each entry of evidence 1 to 3, and evidence 2, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Whether the imposition of each of the corporate tax in this case is lawful
A. The Defendant alleged the Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) calculated the rent per one square meter of a F dance institute located in the same building as the instant real estate; and (b) compared it with the instant real estate rent; and (c) compared it with the instant real estate rent.