beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 28, 2012, the Plaintiff completed business registration (30% of the Plaintiff’s share) under the Housing Construction and Sales Business Act, and closed business on November 26, 2014.
B. On January 10, 2013, the Plaintiff and B obtained a building permit to newly construct 19 households of multi-family housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) on the ground of the Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Busan-si (hereinafter “instant housing”). On March 11, 2013, the Plaintiff and B purchased the housing after obtaining approval for use on July 1, 2013.
C. In filing a return on global income tax for 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) sold by-products of the previous building in 2012, which was the taxable period immediately preceding the 2013 taxable period; and (b) paid KRW 300,000 below the amount prescribed in Article 143(4)2(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25193, Feb. 21, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Plaintiff calculated estimated income by applying the simple expense rate under the above provision; (b) applied the special tax reduction and exemption for small and medium enterprises pursuant to Article 7(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12853, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply).
The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, from April 26, 2017 to June 9, 2017, conducted a personal consolidated investigation with the Plaintiff. As a result, the Plaintiff: (a) as a new business entity that commenced a business in 2013 with the sales revenue of the instant house, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the taxation data to the effect that the Plaintiff should be excluded from special tax reduction and exemption for small and medium enterprises under Article 7(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act because the sales revenue of the instant house exceeds the standard amount under Articles 143(4)1 and 208(5)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act; (b) the Plaintiff did not engage in a construction business; and (c) the Plaintiff did not engage in a construction business;
E. Accordingly, on August 10, 2017, the Defendant: (a) the global income tax on the Plaintiff for the year 2013,027.