Incheon District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-53792 (2018.05)

The simple expense rate shall not apply to the false import declaration.

The court's explanation on the instant case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for deletion or addition as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Seoul High Court 2018Nu5979 Global Income and Revocation of Disposition

1.SA 2. Gimb

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

November 06, 2018

December 04, 2018

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of global income tax (including additional tax) of KRW 804,831,740 on December 1, 2016 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff Plaintiff Nonparty Nonparty Nonparty on December 1, 2016 and the imposition of global income tax of KRW 120,035,90 on December 1, 2016 by the Defendant against Plaintiff KimB on December 1, 2016 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on the instant case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for deletion or addition as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ Dembling the content of the overall call from 5th to 4th of the judgment of the first instance, and add from 6th to 4th of the lower court:

④ Whether a business income under the Income Tax Act falls under business income shall be determined according to social norms, taking into account whether business activities are continuously and repeatedly conducted, in light of the existence of the business profit purpose and the scale, frequency, and mode of business, and other factors. Even if the Plaintiffs were to have actually earned the above income in 2012 and 2013, the Plaintiffs were to have registered business in order to be subject to the simplified expense rate in the future, and the sales of KRW 6 million and KRW 3 million were to have occurred once. The sales of KRW 6 million are limited to the specific persons of Kim Young-young, and it cannot be deemed that the other party to the sales have continuously and repeatedly seen as having continued business activities in light of the purpose, size, frequency, and mode of profit, and so it is difficult to view that the business income earned by the Plaintiffs falls under the business income acquired through continuous and repeated activities for profit-making purposes by the business entities of Park Young-young or sales agent.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.