The legitimacy of the assertion that the monthly rent confirmed by the determination of the actual investigation is excessive

If there is any error or omission in the details of the finalized report by the business operator, it shall be taxed by deeming the contents of the rental contract confirmed by the lessee as true, and it shall be determined according to the actual facts in some

Article 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 18 of the Income Tax Act

1. On February 5, 2006, the part exceeding 734,300 won of the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2004 against the Plaintiff on February 5, 2006, and the part exceeding 700,040 won of the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the first period of 727,150 won of the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2005, and the part exceeding 3,168,590 won of the imposition disposition of global income tax for the year 2004 shall be revoked, respectively.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 9/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder by the defendant.

The Defendant’s revocation of each portion of the value-added tax exceeding KRW 2,101,00,000 among the value-added tax for the Plaintiff from February 27, 2003 to January 2005 on December 27, 2005 (which appears to be a clerical error as of February 5, 2006) and KRW 3,706,000 among the global income tax in 203 and 2004.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 19, 200, the Plaintiff is a person who carries on a real estate leasing business under the trade name called '○○○○○ Lease' from ○○○-dong building located in ○○○-dong, ○○○-dong (hereinafter referred to as the "instant building").

B. On September 30, 2003 to September 29, 2005, the Plaintiff reported value-added tax to the Defendant on the following terms: (a) a lease agreement between ○○ and ○○ on September 30, 2003 to KRW 40 million on September 29, 2005; and (b) a lease agreement between ○○ and ○○ on October 31, 2004 to KRW 40 million on October 30, 2007; and (c) a lease agreement between ○○ and ○○ on October 30, 2007 to ensure that the lease period is not paid.

C. As a result of the tax investigation conducted on the Plaintiff, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff leased each of the second floor of the instant building to ○○○○○, KRW 40 million, KRW 1900,000,000, KRW 40,000,000, KRW 1430,000,000, and KRW 1,4330,000,000, respectively, of the instant building, and imposed and notified each of the amounts indicated in the “calculated tax amount” on the Plaintiff’s revenue amount from February 5, 2003 to January 2005, as indicated in the following list of revenue amount and income amount.

(unit: Won)

Classification

Original Report

Correction of Investigations

Determination tax amount (including additional duties, tax credit for the term payment)

Tax Base

Tax amount already paid

Tax Base

2003. The value-added tax for 2 years

5,893,808

162,079

20,893,808

743,550

on 1, 2004.

5,870,818

176,124

20,870,820

72,550

2004. Two-year value added tax

5,467,868

169,436

20,907,869

743,760

on 1, 2005

5,628,164

168,844

21,408,164

727,150

Global income tax for the year 2003

458,247

41,242

18,098,248

3,062,880

Global income tax for the year 2004

1,541,177

138,705

20,211,59

3,168,690

D. The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the imposition of the above value-added tax and the imposition of each of the above global income tax, and filed an appeal on April 14, 2006, but was dismissed on September 14, 2006.

Facts that there is no dispute, and entry of No. 1 to 6 of the evidence of No. 1

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From September 30, 2003 to June 30, 2005, the monthly rent of the first floor of the instant building is not more than 1.9 million won, and the monthly rent from October 31, 2004 to June 30, 2005 of the second floor is not more than 1.43 million won, but not more than 1.3 million won. Since each of the instant dispositions is imposed on the basis of the contract prepared falsely between the end of the former ○○○○○, which has a malicious appraisal against the Plaintiff and the end of ○○○○, the part exceeding the legitimate tax amount, as described in the purport of the instant disposition, shall be revoked.

(b) Related statutes;

/ Value-Added Tax Act

Article 13 (Tax Base)

(1) The tax base for value-added taxes on the supply of goods or services shall be the aggregate of the values in the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as "value of supply"): Provided, That value-added taxes

1. Where payments are given in money, the payments;

2. Where payments other than money are given, the current market price of goods or services supplied by the supplier;

【Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 49-2 (Special Cases concerning Calculation of Tax Base for Real Estate Lease Services)

(1) Where a business operator supplies real estate rental services and receives security deposits or deposits for lease, the tax base shall be the amount calculated by the following formula by deeming that he/she receives compensation other than money referred to in Article 13 (1) 2 of the Act and that he/she receives such deposits or deposits. In such cases, where a person who has fully borne the construction expenses for underground roads reverted to the State or a local government obtains permission to occupy and use an underground road (limited to the period of primary free occupancy

(The number of days of taxation period of the deposit or deposit for lease deposit) X (number of days of taxation period), X contract period of one year, and 365 = Tax base

/ Income Tax Act

Article 18 (Real Estate Rental Income)

(1) Real estate rental income shall be the following income generated in the relevant year:

1. Income accruing from a lease of any real estate or right to the real estate;

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On July 16, 199, the Plaintiff entered into a double contract with the former ○○ on September 30, 1999 to September 29, 199; the deposit amount of KRW 30 million; and the monthly rent of KRW 1.8 million; the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the former ○○ on September 30, 209 to KRW 700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00.

(2) On October 20, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the Gao on October 31, 2004 to October 30, 2007 on the second floor of the instant building with a deposit of KRW 40 million to October 30, 2007, and monthly rent of KRW 1430,00,000, and the Gao reported that it is no monthly rent by the Gao.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 13, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 6, and 7, witness O and GabO's statements, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

In full view of the above facts, the monthly rent from September 30, 2003 to June 30, 2005 with regard to the part of the first floor of the instant building can be recognized as the fact that the monthly rent from October 31, 2004 to June 30, 2005 with regard to the second floor is 1,30,000 won (the plaintiff's monthly rent from September 30, 2003 to June 30, 2005). (The plaintiff's monthly rent from September 30, 2000 to 70,000 won was returned from the previous 1,90,000 won to the previous 1,90,000 won was threatened by the plaintiff's accusation, and thus, it cannot be justified, and there is no other evidence to prove that the monthly rent from September 30, 2003 to 70,000 won was 7,000 won or more.).

Therefore, as indicated in the following calculation table of the value-added tax amount, the Plaintiff’s second half-yearly value-added tax amount shall be KRW 734,308, and the first half-yearly value-added tax amount in 2005 shall be KRW 700,046, and the global income tax amount in 2004 shall be KRW 3,132,689, as indicated in the following global income tax calculation table.

Therefore, the portion exceeding 734,300 won of value-added tax for the second term of 2004 of this case (a fraction less than 10 won, according to Article 48(1) of the Management of the National Funds Act; hereinafter the same shall apply), the portion exceeding 700,040 won of value-added tax for the first term of 2005, and the portion exceeding 3,168,690 won of global income tax for the year 2004, among 3,168,690 won of value-added tax for the second term of 204, should be revoked unlawfully.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.