Suwon District Court 201Guhap3727, 2012.17

Early High Court Decision 201J 1434 (Law No. 13, 2011)

It is determined that the Plaintiff’s instant officetel was supplied for self-supply by converting it to residential use.

(1) In light of the following: (a) the lessee of the instant officetel asserted by the Plaintiff is the representative of the Plaintiff (or the Plaintiff himself) and there is no specific evidence of monthly rent as the Plaintiff’s representative; (b) the instant officetel is a structure suitable for residence; and (c) the Plaintiff’s family members had the address in the instant officetel, it is determined that the instant officetel is used for residential purpose.

Article 6 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Nu24766. Disposition of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

KimA

Head of the High Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap3727 Decided July 17, 2012

March 27, 2013

April 24, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 for the first period of January 3, 201 that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on January 3, 201 shall be revoked.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: even if the evidence presented by the plaintiff was neglected by this court, it is not sufficient to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance. The relevant part is cited pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.