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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s global income tax (including additional tax) on December 1, 2016 on global income for the 2014 2014 owed to Plaintiff OO.

804,831,740 won imposed by the Defendant and the Defendant reverted to the Plaintiff KimO on December 1, 2016 in 2014.

The imposition of global income tax (including additional tax) KRW 120,035,990 shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiff director registered the business of the housing construction and sales business, etc. independently as follows, and the Plaintiffs registered the business of the housing construction and sales business, etc. as joint (50%, respectively) as follows:

B. On May 31, 2013, Plaintiff OO filed a comprehensive income tax return on May 31, 2013, with Plaintiff OO, which was subject to Indian business.

Recognizing that 6,00,000 won (hereinafter referred to as "tax revenue amount") was generated from the revenue amount, the necessary expenses applying the simple expense rate was deducted from the income amount, and reported the global income amount to 7,40,000 won [6 million won - the necessary expenses under the simple expense rate (6,256,000 won x 87.6%)] (the tax amount to be paid due to income deduction became zero won).

C. On June 2, 2014, when filing a comprehensive income tax for the year 2013, the Plaintiffs asserted that a sales agent’s income amount of KRW 3 million (hereinafter “income amount from sales in lots”) was accrued from the sales agent’s sales in lots, and deducted necessary expenses that applied the simplified expense rate from the income amount, and filed a return for each of the global income amount of KRW 473,182 [income amount of KRW 1,363,636 (income amount of KRW 3 million x 1/2 x 10/11)] with the necessary expense amount of KRW 890,454 ( KRW 1,363,636 x 65.3%) under the simplified expense rate (income deduction amount of KRW 0).

D. In 2014, Plaintiff UO newly constructed a main complex building (OE) in the name of Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, in the name of a housing construction business entity, at KRW 79,24,650,000,000. The Plaintiff UO sold the complex building (OE) to KRW 4.24,65 million in the name of the Bupyeong-gu, Incheon. In the name of the Housing Construction and Sales Business entity + + 6.279,000,000,000,000,000,000. The Plaintiffs sold the complex building to KRW 4.1 billion in the name of the 2014,000,000,000,000 under the name of the Bupyeong-gu, Incheon. The Plaintiffs sold the complex building to KRW 4.1 billion in the name of the 2014.

When filing a comprehensive income tax for June 1, 2015, the Plaintiffs reported global income by deducting necessary expenses applying simple expense rates from the amount of income generated from the sale of each building on the ground that the amount of income during the immediately preceding taxable period falls short of the standard amount of construction business income (36 million won) prescribed in Article 143(4)2(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26982, Feb. 17, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) and thus falls under the subject of the application of simple expense rate.

E. The Defendant: (a) filed a return of comprehensive income tax for the year 2013 with respect to the Plaintiff’s filing of the Plaintiff’s claim by the Plaintiff’s filing of the global income tax for the year 2012; and (b) filed a return of comprehensive income tax for the year 2012 with the Plaintiff’s filing of the global income tax for the year 2014, in order to apply the simplified expense rate unfairly; and (b) the Plaintiffs filed a return of global income tax for the year 2014 to the Plaintiff’s filing of the global income tax for the sale of each of the above buildings; (c) the amount of income exceeds KRW 150,000,000 for the Plaintiff’s new entrepreneur who commenced the business in 20,000; (d) the amount of income constitutes subject to the application of the standard expense rate under Articles 143(3)1 proviso and (4)1 and 208(5)2(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act; and (d) the Plaintiff’s filing of the global income tax for each of 2015 years.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap's 1, 2, 5 through 7, 9 through 13, Eul's 1 to 9, and 1 to 9

(2) The purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Since income accrued in 2013, KRW 3,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, the simple expense rate is applied pursuant to Article 143(4)2(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act to the business income accrued in 2014, and each of the dispositions of this case applying standard expense rate is unlawful

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances in which evidence Nos. 4 through 15 acknowledged the overall purport of the pleadings, it cannot be deemed that: (a) Plaintiff CO obtained the revenue of KRW 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 were engaged in a sales agency business in 2013; or (b) the Plaintiffs obtained the revenue of KRW 3 million,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,00.

① Even according to the Plaintiffs’ assertion, the Plaintiff’s POO’s business registration as to interior housing units in the Homan KimO on December 30, 2012, after receiving KRW 6 million as the construction cost. On December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff’s business registration as to interior fishing was made. The Plaintiffs jointly registered the sales agency business on December 2, 2013, with the trade name of presidential sales, and received KRW 3 million as the sales brokerage commission by introducing the applicants to the sale to the KimO on December 9, 2013, and closed the business on June 30, 2014. However, there was no evidence that the Plaintiffs continued to engage in interior fishing as the sales agent after the Plaintiff’s business registration was made, and there was no special reason for the Plaintiffs’ business registration as to the sales agent’ business closure after KimO’s sales agent’s business closure.

② In the course of tax investigation, the Plaintiff’s corporate registration appears to have been made as a means to reduce the tax burden pursuant to the Housing Construction and Sales Business Act, and it is highly doubtful whether the business entity has the substance of the business. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s corporate registration was made as a means to reduce the tax burden pursuant to the Housing Construction and Sales Business Act in the course of tax investigation, it appears that the Plaintiff’s corporate registration was made as a means to reduce the tax burden in the future.

③ The Plaintiffs shall be registered as a business of housing construction and sales business in 2013-2014 and a large-scale residence.

The business activities of newly constructing and selling a building were conducted by the plaintiffs. Even according to the plaintiffs' assertion, the business registration of interior fishery and sales agency business was conducted in relation to the business activities of the plaintiffs, which are no particular relation with the housing construction and sales business, which are the main business of the plaintiffs, at the time when the business activities of the housing construction and sales business were prepared or conducted. However, there is a strong doubt as to whether the business activities of interior fishery and sales agency have been conducted only once between the plaintiff and KimO, since the small amount of transactions had been conducted between the plaintiff and KimO, and whether there was a transaction as alleged by the plaintiffs between the plaintiff and KimO. It is difficult to view that the documents submitted by the plaintiffs to support that there had been a transaction with KimO, as objective materials for the transaction between the plaintiffs and KimO, and the statement contents of Kim O related to the sales agency transaction of the plaintiffs do not conflict with the plaintiffs' statements in terms of the object and contents of the transaction.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.