Since the defect which serves as the taxation requirement cannot be seen as apparent apparent, it can not be called as an inevitable fee.

Whether or not the Plaintiff engaged in real estate sales business is a case where it can be revealed only when the facts should be accurately examined, and such defect cannot be deemed to be apparent, so it cannot be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course.

Article 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Incheon District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-293 (2017.08)

O*

OO Head of the tax office

2017.08.11

2017.09.08

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's value-added tax for the second term of August 8, 2003 against the plaintiff on August 8, 2003 30,294,370 won and 1999

Each disposition of KRW 67,905,560 on global income for the year shall be confirmed to be null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired and transferred real estate as listed in the following table in 1999.

B. On August 8, 2003, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff engaged in real estate sales business, and against the Plaintiff on August 8, 2003

Division of Value-Added Tax for a period of two years, 30,294,370 won and 67,905,560 won for global income for the year 199

The division (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case") was the disposition of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the plaintiff only purchased and sold real estate on a remote opportunity, it is not true that the plaintiff only purchased and sold real estate on several occasions.

The defendant is deemed the plaintiff as a real estate sales businessman, so the disposition of this case is the citizen's property.

In addition to infringement of rights, it violates the principle of substantial taxation. The Plaintiff transferred real estate and quantity.

The Plaintiff paid the Do income tax but ordered the payment of the value-added tax and the global income tax.

This disposition has also violated the principle of double taxation prohibition, as well as the old addition.

Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17041 of Dec. 29, 2000; hereinafter the same shall apply) 2

According to the provision of Paragraph 1(5) of Paragraph 1, a part of the real estate sold by the Plaintiff is categorized as the category;

Transfer of forest land, which is subject to value-added tax, shall not be subject to any such tax.

Since a person is significant and obvious, the disposition of this case is null and void as a matter of course.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Criteria for determining the invalidation of an administrative disposition

In order for an administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, there is no illegality in the disposition.

It is objectively apparent that the defect is serious in violation of the important part of the law and regulations.

The purpose, meaning, and function of the law to determine whether the defect is serious or clear.

It is reasonable to consider the nature of the specific case itself from a theoretical point of view and at the same time, it considers the specific case itself

It is required to consider (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du2403, Nov. 26, 2004).

in the case of an administrative litigation that claims the invalidity of an administrative disposition and seeks the invalidity confirmation thereof,

The reason why the administrative disposition is invalid is asserted and proved by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court).

See Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6030 delivered on March 10, 1992

2) As to the assertion that he did not engage in real estate sales business

For the following reasons, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

A) Whether the transaction of real estate constitutes real estate trading, which is a taxation requirement of value-added tax

Whether the transaction is for profit, and in light of the scale, frequency, mode, etc. of the transaction, the business activity is for profit.

Social norms by taking into account the existence of continuity and repetition of the degree that can be seen as such;

In light of the foregoing, it must be considered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu10881, Feb. 25, 1997).

The facts acknowledged in Section 1-A and Nos. 1 and 2 as to the instant case

all entries and arguments shall be deemed to have been integrated or known as follows:

[1] From March 8, 199 to August 9, 199, seven times during a period of time not exceeding five months by the Plaintiff.

'00 772-1 8,070 m20 m20 m20 m200 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20

326-107 Co-ownership 1/2 of each of 8 households in row houses

The shares (including the above real estate) are acquired by transfer, and April 1999.

26. Assignment of the entire real estate of this case for a period of time from October 19, 199 to 6 months.

(2) The Plaintiff acquired real estate by 2001 in addition to the above real estate transactions.

The transfer transaction seems to have been engaged in the transfer transaction, and 3. The plaintiff's purpose of living in the past.

The disposition of this case was asserted that the land was acquired on the five parcels located in the Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-do, but the disposition of this case

At the time of ( August 8, 2003), the address of the Plaintiff was '00,000 apartment units 00 00,000, and the present address of the Plaintiff.

‘00 Dong 00 apartment 000 Dong 000

In light of the view, the Plaintiff started to acquire five parcels of land located in the Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-do.

From March 8, 1999 to March 8, 1999, the plaintiff seems to have continuously resided in 000.

In addition, the land category of the above five lots of land that was acquired for the purpose of the living of electric power sources is transferred, answer, or become a land category.

I would not have been able to build a house for the head of the Gu, and '00 Ri' among them.

72-1 8,070 square meters prior to takeover shall not be related to the life of an electric source even before the lapse of two months after takeover.

- - - '00 buildings' which appear to be exchanged, and 4 persons who have acquired them.

Before the month, 'Seoul 000 Federal Housing' 1/2 each of 8 households

In light of the fact that the plaintiff was exchanged as co-owned shares, the Dong Dong-dong of this case for the purpose of actual residence.

Taking full account of the facts that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have taken over the mountain, the Plaintiff’s business activities

to the extent that it can be seen as such, with continuity and repetition of real estate transactions as above,

It is reasonable to view that a real estate trading business has been engaged in.

B) Meanwhile, the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 193 on April 3, 2001)

section 1(1) of the Act provides that "for business purposes, at least once during one taxable period for business purposes; hereinafter the same shall apply)"

Where real estate is acquired and sold not less than twice, this shall be deemed to be a real estate sales business.

C. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff acquired and transferred real estate.

The Plaintiff was engaged in real estate sales business in light of its future form, size, frequency, retention period, etc.

As long as it is reasonable to see the Plaintiff’s death as prescribed by Article 1(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the former Value-Added Tax Act.

"Cases of acquiring real estate at least once during one taxable period and selling real estate at least twice for business purposes";

1) The Plaintiff’s act of transferring real estate of this case is subject to value added tax.

I would like to be the object.2)

C) Even if the Plaintiff did not engage in real estate sales business, the Plaintiff did not sell the real estate.

whether or not it has been engaged in the business or not shall be identified only when the facts are accurately examined.

Since such defects cannot be seen as apparent in appearance, the defendant is subject to taxation.

Even if the disposition of this case was taken by misunderstanding the office, such disposition shall not be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course (U.S.).

Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268 delivered on September 4, 2002, etc.

3) As to the assertion that double taxation was denied

income from the transfer of real estate by a resident, which is conducted as part of the business;

The business income or transfer income tax that is subject to global income tax under the Income Tax Act depending on whether it is recognized.

Income subject to taxation shall be only one of the capital gains subject to taxation, and global income and capital gains shall be divided.

Since three units vary, income tax and comprehensive tax on income from the transfer of real estate shall be assessed against income from the transfer of real estate.

If the acquisition tax is imposed, it shall be subject to the substantive relationship and shall be subject to whether either of the imposition is illegal.

It is necessary to determine whether there is any substantial illegality or not, at all times, a later imposition.

A disposition is neither invalidated nor unlawful on the ground that it is double taxation (Supreme Court).

(1) A taxpayer is obliged to pay capital gains tax, and a taxpayer is obliged to pay capital gains tax.

The tax amount to be voluntarily paid at the same time is merely a fact-finding act that the tax authority receives.

Since this cannot be seen as a confirmatory disposition, the taxpayer voluntarily pays the transfer income tax.

The tax authority considers that the transfer of a taxpayer’s assets constitutes real estate sales business and that the transfer thereof:

The imposition of comprehensive income tax is not subject to double taxation (Supreme Court Decision 8 April 8, 1997).

We cannot accept the foregoing argument that it violates its meaning.

3) [Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268 Decided September 4, 2002]

Generally, taxation is imposed on a person who does not have any factual basis such as the legal relation or income or act subject to taxation.

With respect to any legal relationship or fact which is not subject to taxation, even though the defect is significant and obvious;

In a case where there are objective circumstances to mislead that it is subject to taxation, whether it is subject to taxation

If it is possible to accurately examine the facts, it is apparent that the defect is apparent in appearance even if it is serious.

As such, it cannot be said that the taxation disposition that misleads the fact of the taxation requirement is not necessarily null and void.

96Nu15725), as seen earlier, the Plaintiff acquired and transferred real estate.

The plaintiff shall continue to be a profit-making purpose in light of its future form, size, frequency, retention period, etc.

As long as it is reasonable to view that the Defendant engaged in real estate sales repeatedly, the instant disposition is rendered by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff’s imposition of the general income tax from the business income is only lawful.

In addition, the defendant imposed capital gains tax on the plaintiff and again issued the disposition of this case.

The issue of double taxation arises by imposing the comprehensive income tax on the Plaintiff with the business income.

There is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff was born. [The amount of the capital gains tax that the plaintiff had paid.]

of this case’s global income tax in collecting global income tax imposed by the instant disposition

The disposition of this case is only limited to the circumstances that should be deducted or appropriated from the amount of capital gains tax payable.

that is irrelevant to the illegality of the section (99Du5412 and 96Nu15725 mentioned above).

[See each purport of the judgment]

In addition, capital gains tax shall be the tax base of increase in profits during the holding period of assets.

On the other hand, value-added tax is levied on all stages of production, provision and distribution of goods or services.

The corporate tax liability shall be imposed on the value added tax basis created by the corporation.

Since the requirements for establishment and the timing and objects of taxation are different, the tax authorities shall eventually impose each disposition.

In part, it shall be judged independently in accordance with the substance according to each taxation requirement.

Therefore, if each of the requirements for taxation are satisfied, a special rule to exclude duplicate application of both parties.

Unless otherwise specified, only one taxation is possible.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

4) As to the assertion that the value-added tax is not imposed

The main sentence of Article 2 (1) 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act is "real estate business, rental business and business."

In addition, Article 1(3) of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that "service business" shall be included in "service".

In the former part of the proviso, the term "business of leasing electricity, paddy field, orchard, stock farm site, forest land or salt farm" is defined as "services."

In the case of "the lease business of electricity, paddy field, orchard, stock farm site, forest land or salt farm", the Gu

Services for a business subject to the imposition of value-added tax under subparagraph 1 of Article 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) In the case of real estate trading business under the latter part of the proviso, the supply of goods;

In the end, "real estate sales business" in the interpretation of the relevant laws and regulations shall be deemed the business of the Gu.

part of goods as tangible property having property value under Article 1(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act;

Value-added tax under Article 1 (1) 1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act as "the provision of movable property"

It is considered that the project is subject to the task.

Therefore, the first-party plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, and all of the claims are dismissed. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.