Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap43515 (2012.06)

early 2011west 2985 ( December 13, 2011)

It cannot be deemed that a joint business was operated only on the basis of the agreement of the business, so the tax disposition was illegal.

(As with the judgment of the court of first instance) The agreement and the settlement statement of this case alone are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiffs operated a private teaching institute as a joint project. Thus, the disposition imposing global income tax on the premise of a joint project is unlawful.

2012Nu2358 Gross income and revocation of disposition

Lee Dong-A 3 others

Head of the District Tax Office and two others

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap43515 decided July 6, 2012

November 16, 2012

January 11, 2013

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. On June 7, 2011, the decision of the court of first instance was corrected on June 8, 201, in paragraph (d) of Article 1-4 of the disposition of the court of first instance.

1. Purport of claim

The imposition of global income tax on June 7, 201 by the Head of the Regional Tax Office on the part of the Plaintiff LA, 2008, and 000 won for the year 2009, and the imposition of global income tax on the part of the Defendant Dongjak on June 7, 2011, and the imposition of global income tax on the total of 000 won for the year 2007 and 000 won for the year 2008, and the imposition of global income tax on the total of 000 won for the year 2009 to the Plaintiff LA, and the imposition of global income tax on the total of 00 won for the year 2000 and 000 won for the year 2009, and the imposition of global income and 2000 won for the year 2008 shall be revoked on the part of the Plaintiff NA on June 7, 201.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this decision are as follows: (a) on June 7, 2011, the fourth 8th 7th 201 (except Table) of the first instance court judgment (However, on June 8, 2011, and on the corresponding parts of the first instance judgment, the following are added. It is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

(a) the following parts: “The assessment shall be made” of the first instance judgment 9:

(1) The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s under-reported return of the revenues of the instant fish driving school, and that the Plaintiff F’s sole burden of necessary expenses cannot be said to be a certain part of the individual instructor class. However, the Defendants’ under-reported report was based on the Defendants’ trend, and there is no particular evidence to acknowledge it, and that the instant disposition was unlawful if the import was under-reported as the Defendants’ assertion, it is difficult to accept the aforementioned assertion by the Defendants as above).

B. The last seven parts of the decision of the first instance court

(Defendants, and the rest of Plaintiffs except Plaintiff A, also participated in the overall operation of the instant private teaching institute. However, in light of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 6 and 11 cited by the Defendants, it is insufficient to recognize that Plaintiffs jointly operated the instant private teaching institute solely on the basis of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 6 and 11.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims in this case must be accepted in all on the grounds, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion. Therefore, all appeals filed by the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit, and since it is obvious that the appeal is a clerical error as of June 8, 201, the judgment of the court of first instance No. 1-D, which was made on June 7, 201, is correct.