at the time of estimation determination, the standard expense rate is not applicable to the simple expense rate.

As alleged by the plaintiffs, it cannot be seen that the revenue amount in the immediately preceding taxable period is less than 36 million won, which is the standard revenue amount in the construction business, under Article 143 (4) 2 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

Article 1-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2018Guhap51151 global income and revocation of such disposition

○○ et al.

○ Head of Tax Office and one other

On July 1, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as " July 31, 2017") the director of the tax office of Busan District Tax Office seems to be a clerical error in writing) limited to Plaintiff Maa.

Imposition of global income tax (including additional tax) 238,482,300 won for the year 2015, and Defendant North Incheon National Tax Service

on July 1, 2017, the Secretary General: global income tax (including additional tax) for the year 2015, extended to Plaintiff Ba on July 1, 2017

53,619,910 won shall be revoked.

December 06, 2018

.01.10

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs. The office shall hold the lawsuit

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 7, 2014, the Plaintiffs registered the business of the Housing Construction and Sales Business (hereinafter referred to as the “instant business”) with a trade name, “non-aaaaaaa”, which is joint (Plaintiff Maa 80%, Plaintiff Ma 20%) (hereinafter referred to as “instant business”).

B. On June 30, 2014, 2014, the Plaintiffs purchased two buildings, such as 2nd-class 1, 4, 15, 2, and 2nd-class 5,500,000,000 won for 1,50,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 15,000,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000,000 won for 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for 2,000,000,000 won for 2,000,000 won for 1,5,000,000 won for 2,000,000 won for 2,000 won for 5,000 won for 2,000 won for 2,015.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiffs, in 2014, obtained Plaintiff Maa 4.8 million won and Plaintiff Ma 1.2 million won as a result of the sales of scrap metal in the instant business in 2014. As such, the “business operator for whom simple expense rate is applicable” under Article 143(4)2(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act constitutes “business operator for whom the amount of revenue in the immediately preceding taxable period is less than 36 million won, which is the standard amount of construction business’s base deposit,” and the simple expense rate should be applied to the business income accrued in 2015. Accordingly, each of the instant dispositions was unlawful by making a decision on the estimation of income by deducting the amount of the income accrued in 2015 from the amount of revenue.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

① According to the proviso of Article 80(3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1525, Dec. 19, 2017); Articles 143(3) and (4), and 208(5)2(b), etc. of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, where income tax returns are omitted or erroneous and the tax base and tax amount are determined or corrected as estimation research because it is impossible to calculate the income amount due to absence of books or documentary evidence, the amount of income shall be determined or revised by deducting the income amount from the income amount multiplied by standard expense rate. However, with respect to a person subject to application of simple expense rate, the amount of income shall be determined or revised by deducting the amount of income from the income amount by simple expense rate. In light of the following facts: (i) whether the income amount of the relevant taxable period falls short of 150 million won for construction business; (ii) the number of times of sales generated by the Plaintiffs’ new construction and sale of aggregate buildings falls short of 36 million won; and (ii) whether it is reasonable to 208.7.208

Therefore, each of the dispositions in this case, which was made by estimating the income amount by deducting the amount applied by standard expense rate from the business income amount of the plaintiffs, is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.