Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Gu Partnership-72385 (2016.03)

It is difficult to recognize that husband has run a joint business with husband, and the imposition of an unfair underreporting penalty is legitimate.

It is difficult to recognize that husband has run a joint business with husband, and the imposition of an unfair under-reported penalty is legitimate.

Seoul High Court-2016-Nu-54109

AA

Head of Mapo Tax Office et al.

Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Gu Partnership-72385

November 09, 2016

November 30, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

Since the global income tax imposed on the Plaintiff on January 3, 2014, the global income tax amount of KRW 7,727,893 (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), KRW 228,00,743, 209, KRW 267,754,732, KRW 482, April 272, 2011, KRW 66,134,094, and the imposition disposition imposed on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on January 3, 2014, both of KRW 208, KRW 268,627, KRW 771, KRW 08, KRW 123,038, KRW 209, KRW 2613, KRW 2064, KRW 2065, KRW 2085, KRW 2016, KRW 2085, KRW 2085, KRW 2016, KRW 36164, KRW 20165, KRW 20165,36465, KRW 20165,20465.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of global income tax for the year 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012, the imposition of global income tax for the year 201, the imposition of 353,324,588 won for the year 201, and the imposition of value-added tax for each of the above imposition of the above imposition of value-added tax by the head of the defendant Jung-gu Tax Department shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court’s judgment is that the first instance court’s judgment is identical to the reasoning of the first instance court’s judgment, except for the portion to be determined additionally in the following sub-paragraph (2) and the main text of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

***** even if the business entity of the plaintiff is the sole business entity of the plaintiff, the cost for the provision of services** is deducted as expenses. However, there was no evidence that can objectively verify the expenditure of additional benefits, etc., in addition to the part that is already recognized as necessary expenses deduction, so the above argument cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

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