Suwon District Court-2018-Gu Partnership-69852 (2019.04.04)

Business of Housing Construction and Sales Business

In case of housing construction and sales business, the starting date of business shall be the time of commencing the sale of each house of this case, on which the supply of goods prescribed in Article 6 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax

2019Nu10371

Ma-○

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2018Guhap69852 Decided April 4, 2019

June 26, 2019

July 24, 2019

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 imposition of global income tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) and global income tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the year 2014 for the Plaintiff on August 7, 2017 shall be revoked, respectively.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is as follows, except for the addition of Paragraph 2 below to the "judgment on the argument of violation of the principle of good faith", and therefore, it refers to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Determination on the assertion of violation of the principle of good faith

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant notified the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff constitutes a person subject to the application of simple expense rate of global income tax for the year 2014 and the year 2015.” The Plaintiff reported and paid the comprehensive income tax for the year 2014 and the year 2015 by applying the simple expense rate with the belief of the above notification. However, the Defendant applied the standard expense rate to the Plaintiff, unlike the above notification. Each of the instant dispositions was unlawful against the principle of good faith by infringing the Plaintiff’s trust, which believed that each of the instant dispositions is subject to the application of the simple expense rate.

B. Determination

The statements in the evidence No. 12, No. 12, and No. 2 and No. 3 cannot be acknowledged that the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was subject to the application of simple expense rate, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit without further review.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.