Changwon District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-228 ( September 19, 2017)

From the beginning to the beginning, it was scheduled to use religious facilities not for rent, and therefore, additional tax on the refund amount in this case is justifiable.

Since it was planned to use religious facilities for rent from the beginning to the beginning, the refund of this case itself was erroneous from the beginning, and thus, additional tax on the refund of this case is justified.

The additional tax on excess refund return under Article 47-4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the additional tax on payments and refund refund under Article 47-5, and the additional tax reduction and

Busan High Court (Capwon) 2017Nu11506 revocation of revocation of disposition imposing additional tax.

00

The Director of the Z Tax Office

5. Judgment of the court of the previous trial

Changwon District Court Decision 2017Guhap228 Decided September 19, 2017

January 17, 2018

February 14, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The value-added tax for the first period of February 4, 2011 rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on February 4, 2016

Additional tax 42,977,270 won, and 39,689,730 won for the second period of 201

(b) revoke the subsection (3).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases where the court is used or added as follows. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

A. The part to be dried

The second-class "the second-class "the second-class" of the first-class "the second-class "the second-class" of the second-class "the second-class "the second-class"

Until the fourth floor, religious facilities" shall be referred to as "school facilities for the elderly and children (care facilities for infants), the first floor underground, and the second floor;

The second floor, third floor, and fourth floor shall be replaced by a religious facility ( temple).

B. Additional parts

Tax amount under tax law is to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims.

If a person violates any of his/her obligations, such as tax returns and payments, without justifiable grounds;

Administrative sanctions imposed in accordance with individual tax-related laws, which have the intent or negligence of the taxpayer;

land or mistake of the statute shall not be considered and shall not be due to the breach of the duty.

He does not constitute the conviction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du10780, Jun. 24, 2004).

The whole of the pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 12, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including paper numbers)

취지를 종합하면, ① 원고는 ZZ시 AA면 QQ로000번길 190(QQ리 000)에 위치한

The fact that it is the well-known knowledge of the Korean People's Republic of Korea EE, 2. The plaintiff on April 10, 2009

Building permission for the building of the building in this case for the purpose of building a bridge for the youth and young generation;

The fact that the plaintiff received, and ③ the construction period for the MM General Construction Co., Ltd. and the building in this case on September 9, 2010

B B From October 1, 2010 to June 30, 201, the construction price shall be KRW 2.1 billion (including value-added tax).

The construction contract was entered into, and ④ the Plaintiff’s construction cost was insufficient while the new construction was being carried out;

The MM General Construction Bank shall receive the refund of value-added tax paid by the Plaintiff included in the construction cost.

In other words, the plaintiff proposed to apply the construction cost to the construction cost, 5 December 28, 2010

W 000-1, W, Z, the location of the place of business of this case, is the location of the building of this case, and real estate is the type of business.

The construction cost during the period from February 2, 2010 to February 2, 2011 following the completion of the business registration made as a substitute business;

The purchase tax related to the real estate rental business shall be the value-added tax amount of approximately KRW 166 million, which is paid by including it;

(6) On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s mother LL as the Plaintiff’s mother case

As a result, approximately KRW 1.3 billion was awarded for water new capital, and the issue was whether to impose gift tax in relation thereto was raised;

The Plaintiff is merely a religious facility exempt from value-added tax and is not a rental facility.

LL is merely a contribution of property to a public-service corporation which is a religious organization, and on December 28, 2015.

On December 29, 2015, the value-added tax was refunded on December 29, 2015.

(7) The building of this case is now between the plaintiff and MM General Construction Co., Ltd.

The fact that a dispute has occurred and the completion inspection is neglected without the completion inspection may be recognized.

In full view of the above facts of recognition, the building of this case was newly constructed or taxed for rent purposes.

The plaintiff can not be deemed to have been provided to the rental business which is a business operator, and the MM comprehensive case

The Corporation did not perform the obligation to report and pay value-added tax after hearing wrong explanations from the Corporation.

C. This constitutes a mere land or mistake under the law, as well as the defendant's plaintiff

Circumstances that real estate rental business registration certificate was issued and the value-added tax was reported for several years;

The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have justifiable grounds for not imposing additional tax. Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have justifiable grounds.

The claim of this case is groundless.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

this decision is delivered with the assent of all Justices.