In the case of an individual, the scope of the related parties recognized as the case of an unfairly low price under Article 13 (1) 3 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 52 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act;

According to Article 13(1)3 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 52(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, where an entrepreneur receives or does not receive any payment for any price significantly lower than the market price that is recognized to unfairly reduce the tax burden on the value of supply of goods and services in transactions with a person in a special relationship with him, the market price of goods and services supplied by him is the standard for imposing the market price. In light of the purport of Article 18(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act that provides that “a person in a special relationship with the above entrepreneur refers to a person referred to in any subparagraph of Article 111 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act or any subparagraph of Article 46(1) of

Article 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 52 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Plaintiff

Head of Seogsan Tax Office

The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 3,409,200 on June 16, 1984 by the defendant against the plaintiff on June 16, 1984 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

(1) On June 16, 1984, the Defendant: (a) calculated the Plaintiff’s tax invoice of KRW 30,000 for the above amount of KRW 15,00, KRW 30,000 for the above amount of KRW 15,00, KRW 20,000 for the above amount of KRW 15,00 for the Plaintiff’s tax base of KRW 30,000 for the above amount of KRW 15,00 for the above amount of tax; (b) KRW 30,00 for the above amount of tax; (c) KRW 10,000 for the above amount of tax; (d) KRW 5,00 for the above amount of tax; and (e) KRW 13,00,00 for the above amount of tax; and (e) KRW 130,00,00 for the above amount of tax; and (e) KRW 230,000 for the above amount of tax payable; and (e) KRW 130,40,719,01,019.

However, Article 13 (1) 3 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "if the plaintiff receives or does not receive any price, the market price of the goods or services supplied by the non-party 1" shall be determined as the tax base, and Article 52 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "if the non-party 1 is significantly lower than the market price, the price of the goods and services supplied by the non-party 2 shall be determined as the price for the transaction with the non-party 10 and the non-party 2 shall be determined as the price for the supply of the goods and services which is considerably lower than the market price," Article 110 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the non-party 10-party 2 shall be determined as the price for the above transaction with the non-party 10-party 4 and the non-party 10-party 2 shall be determined as the market price for the non-party 10-party 1's new shares and investment shares shall be determined as the non-party 2's shares.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of objection seeking revocation because the defendant's disposition of objection was unlawful, is justified, and the lawsuit cost is assessed against the losing defendant and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)