Suwon District Court 201Guhap438 ( October 11, 2011)

Cho High Court Decision 2009J3834 ( November 03, 2010)

In order to ensure that income has been realized, it is sufficient to realize the right to generate income when it is mature and finalized to the extent that it is considerably high.

Since it can be recognized that a lessee has agreed to rent for a certain period and to receive the rent, general management expenses, etc., the obligation to pay value-added tax and income tax may not affect unless the Plaintiff agrees to reduce or exempt rents, etc. prior to the date of payment such as rent, etc., even if the Plaintiff provided a exemption from the rent and general management expenses.

2011Nu39037 and revocation of revocation of the imposition of global income tax;

KimA

Head of the High Tax Office

District Court Decision 2011Guhap438 Decided October 11, 2011

December 5, 2012

December 26, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The decision of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 1st period 00 in 2003, KRW 200 in 203, KRW 000 in 203, KRW 1st year 2004 in 2004, KRW 000 in 200 in 205, KRW 1st year 2005 in 2005, KRW 000 in 2nd year 2006, KRW 2nd year 2000 in 206, and KRW 000 in 200 in 207 and KRW 1st year 200 in 203, and KRW 200 in 200 in 205, and KRW 00 in 206 in 206.

1. The part citing the judgment of the court of first instance

The reasoning of this court's ruling is as follows. The relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts in height:

o 2nd 12nd 12th , "The assessment value tax" means "the value-added tax, and 13 and 14th , September 24, 2008, as of August 1, 2008.

o The term "amount of extended construction cost", which will be three and fourth below, is calculated as "interest on the loan".

o 6th 15th 15th "B corrected (in response to Gap evidence 8th 1, contrary to this, it is difficult to accept the above facts and the statements of Eul evidence 19 and 20 as they are, in light of the above facts and the statements of Eul evidence).

o 11 The following shall be added to the 5th following:

[A person who is supplied with goods or services independently under the Value-Added Tax Act is obligated to pay value-added taxes, and Article 9(2) of the same Act provides services, the time when the services are supplied, goods, facilities or rights are used, and so long as the services are supplied to others, whether the actual payment of the fees is made may not affect determining whether the liability to pay value-added taxes is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du8534, Nov. 28, 2003). Furthermore, in order to ensure that the income subject to income tax is realized, it is sufficient to recognize that the income has not been realized, and that there is considerable maturity and determination of the possibility of realizing the right to generate income (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7176, Dec. 26, 2003), and that there is no other evidence that the Plaintiff did not have any effect on rent reduction or exemption between the Plaintiff and the lessee under the above general management expenses, such as rent reduction or exemption agreement, etc.

o From the 12th below to the 13th fifth day of the plaintiff's argument, the following shall apply:

As shown in the plaintiff's argument, each of the statements in Gap evidence 9, evidence 10, evidence 11, evidence 2, evidence 28, and evidence 29, evidence 1, and evidence 42 through 44 of Gap evidence, evidence 13 evidence 13, evidence 2, and evidence 14 through evidence 17 are acknowledged as follows, and most of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is deemed to have been prepared by OO or plaintiff's leader from August 200 to early 2002, evidence 1, evidence 1, and evidence 2, evidence 2, evidence 42 to 44 of the building of this case is hard to find that the plaintiff was engaged in the construction related business for the corresponding period, and evidence 4, evidence 14 or 17 of this case's loan was not presented by OO or Kim O (OO) from the financial institution without any objective evidence to prove that the plaintiff had not been provided for the extension of the construction of this case's building of this case.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.