Suwon District Court 2007Guhap1673 (Law No. 910, 2008)

Whether a factory building was leased at the actual price

Although it is argued that the factory was leased without compensation, it is difficult to believe that the tenant has leased without compensation in the long term because he/she has registered the business as a lease contract, and that the tenant has appropriated the rent as expenses at the time

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 7 of the Value-Added Tax Act

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 imposition of value-added tax against the plaintiff on April 2, 2007 of the first term portion 790,980, the second term portion 1,012,760, the second term portion 2, 2004, the second term portion 886,760, the second term portion 918,480, the second term portion 2, 2005, the first term portion 887,860, the second term portion 2006, and the second term portion 850,280, each disposition of the second term 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Insuwon District Court 2007Guhap1673, 2008.10]

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on April 2, 2007, KRW 790,980 for the first term of 2004, KRW 1,012,760 for the second term of 2004, KRW 886,760 for the first term of 205, KRW 918,480 for the second term of 2005, KRW 887,860 for the first term of 2006, and KRW 850,280 for the second term of 206.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, from both ○○-gu, Ansan-si, ○○○-dong, 75-○○-dong, 792.5 square meters of a ground factory building (hereinafter referred to as “the instant building”) was leased at a deposit of KRW 250 million, and thereafter, operated metal machinery manufacturing business with the trade name called “○○-ro mechanical service” in the instant building.

B. On January 4, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement on the condition that the 60 square meters of the instant building was leased as security deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000, and the period from January 4, 2004 to 24 months. On January 16, 2004, the Plaintiff, on the instant lease agreement, entered into business registration with the trade name of 66 square meters of the instant building, namely, ○○ mechanical service, and filed a report on the value-added tax and global income tax from 2004 to 2006.

C. On January 10, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement on the condition that the 45 square meters of the instant building was leased as KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 700,000,000 from February 5, 2004 to February 24, 2004. On March 25, 2004, the Plaintiff was registered as the Plaintiff’s business operator by leasing 148.5 square meters of the instant building, among the instant building, and reported the value-added tax and global income tax from 2004 to 2006.

In the case of global income tax return in 2004 and 2005, Kim Jong-man also appropriated 6 million won of each rent as expenses.

D. On April 2, 2007, when the Plaintiff did not report the rental proceeds under the instant lease agreement from the first to the second period from 2004, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing each value-added tax stated in the purport of the claim on the Plaintiff on April 2, 2007.

[인정근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제1호증, 을 제1호증의 1 내지 6, 을 제2호증의 1, 2, 을 제3�ㅇ의 1 내지 3, 을 제4,5호증의 가 1,2, 의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff prepared a false lease contract of this case in order to operate his business after registering his business in Seo-gu and Kim ○, while suffering from business difficulties, and provided them free of charge a space where telephone and facsimile can be installed among the factories of this case. Since the plaintiff concluded a lease contract as stated in each lease contract of this case and received a rent, the disposition of this case must be revoked.

B. Determination

In light of the facts acknowledged earlier, it is reasonable to conclude that the Plaintiff leased part of the building of this case to the Seo-gu and Kim ○○, as stated in each of the instant lease agreements, and received rent therefor. In light of the general commercial transactions, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s lease free of charge of a long-term factory building without compensation to the Seo-gu and Kim ○, in light of the fact that: (a) some of the testimony of the witness ○○, Kim Jong-gi, and evidence Nos. 2 and 3, are registered as the instant lease agreement; and (b) the Kim ○-gu reported the global income tax on the global income tax; and (c) the rent pursuant to the instant lease agreement is appropriated as expenses when it reported the global income tax on the global income tax; and (d) the lease of the building of this case free of charge for a long-term factory in light of the general commercial transactions, it is difficult to believe it, and there is no other reflect

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.