Suwon District Court-2015-Guhap-69844 (No. 27, 2016)

It cannot be deemed that the rent received from the borrowed account is the principal collection of the loan.

The argument that the principal of the loan was collected with respect to the monthly rent received from the lessee as the borrowed account is entirely unreasonable.

Article 17 of the Income Tax Act Article 26-2

Seoul High Court 2016Nu69514 Disposition Revocation of Value-Added Tax Imposition

Kim 00

00. Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Guhap69844 Decided September 27, 2016

2017.3.9

5.11

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of revocation shall be revoked on December 1, 2013, value-added tax of 12,525,250 won for the first term of 207 for the plaintiff on December 1, 2007, value-added tax of 12,224,160 won for the second term of 207, value-added tax of 11,926,530 won for the first term of 208, value-added tax of 11,625,270 won for the second term of 208, value-added tax of 11,329,070 won for the first term of 209, value-added tax of 11,027,980 won for the second term of 209, value-added tax of 11,865,370 won for the first term of 2010, value-added tax of 1416,301,27 won for 27

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except to write down some of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance and add some of them as follows. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts to be dried or added.

○ In the second sentence of the fifth judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added:

② The Plaintiff, who is the lessee of the instant building, assumed the obligation of KRW 560 million against the Plaintiff of Kims from the former Kims, the lessee of the instant building, and the Plaintiff assumed the obligation of KRW 560 million against the Plaintiff of Kims, and, after Eaa, Uddd and the lessee of the instant building also assumed the remainder of the obligation, reduced the respective rents for Eaa and Ed and Udd and increased the rent at an appropriate level from September 201, when Udd and Udd have fully repaid the said obligation. However, the relationship between the Plaintiff and Eaa and Ed and Edd and the obligation between the Plaintiff and Kims were based on separate causes, and solely on the fact that Eaa takes over the obligation of Kims against the Plaintiff of Es, the Plaintiff does not seem to have any reason to reduce the rent to Ea.

No. 5 of the first instance court's decision No. 2, â…………………â………â……ââ……â………ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ

The court of first instance alleged that "it is difficult to obtain" under the 5th 9th e.g., "it is difficult to obtain," and at the time of the tax investigation of this case, the plaintiff loaned KRW 620 million, which is the amount equivalent to the deposit raised to Kims, to Kims. However, at the first e.g., the court of first e., the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff lent KRW 620,000 to Kims for the purpose of the cost of facility investment and the cost of restoration under the corrective order of the administrative agency, and that the reasons for the loan are inconsistent."

In accordance with the purport of the whole statements and arguments in Section 6-1 and Section 2 of Section A, the plaintiff is recognized to have drawn up and kept a loan certificate in the name of the father, who is the father of the company operated by the plaintiff between Section 6-1 and Section 5 of Section 7 of the first instance trial, and added "........."

2. Conclusion

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

.