Review Division 2009-0010 (2009.03.09)

Even if rent has not been paid, there is liability to pay value-added taxes so long as a lease agreement is concluded.

The lease contract is effective regardless of whether or not the deposit is paid, solely on the sole basis of the contract to lease the building and to receive the deposit or rent, and there is a duty to pay value-added tax thereon.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On June 5, 2008, the Defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of value-added tax of 1,185,510 won for the first term of 2004, value-added tax of 204 for the second term of 2,004, value-added tax of 696,450 won for the second term of 205, value-added tax of 704,110 won for the second term of 2, 2005, value-added tax of 806,900 won for the first term of 206, and value-added tax of 827,520 for the second term of 206.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 9, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Dong-si BB-dong BB-dong BB-dong 137-34, 97.96 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant operating building”). On September 1, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Dong-dong B-dong 137-34 square meters to lease the said 137-34 square meters building (hereinafter referred to as the “Dong-dong building”).

B. The Defendant: (a) during each taxable period from January 2004 to February 2, 2006, considered the Plaintiff’s rent income in total as KRW 52,220,000,000; and (b) imposed value-added tax on the rent income corresponding to each of the above taxable periods (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an objection on September 1, 2008, but was dismissed. The Plaintiff filed a request for examination on January 15, 2009, but was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1 through 6, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 16-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate

(a) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

B. Determination

1) First of all, the Plaintiff asserts that, since thisCC did not pay the lease deposit of KRW 15 million out of the lease deposit of KRW 15 million, ParkA did not pay the lease deposit of KRW 50 million, the lease contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the above lessee was effective from the beginning, and that there was no obligation to pay value-added tax on the rent since the lease contract was not paid, the lease contract is effective regardless of whether or not the Plaintiff leased each of the buildings of this case and agreed to receive the deposit or rent from this case (the Plaintiff was terminated on the ground that the said lease contract was not paid the deposit, but there was no evidence to prove that this contract was terminated on the ground that the lease contract was terminated on the ground that this case’s lease contract was terminated on July 15, 2008, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lease contract was terminated on the ground that this case’s lease contract was concluded during each of the above taxable period of KRW 195,000,000,0000,000.

2) In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the terms and conditions of the lease to thisCC are as KRW 90,000,000 for the lease deposit of KRW 15,000,000,000,000 for the lease deposit and KRW 50,000,000,000,000 for the lease deposit without any rent. Thus, the instant disposition that imposed value-added tax on thisCC by deeming the rent of KRW 1.45,00,00 for the first month as KRW 2.2 million is unlawful

According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s 5-year rental fee of KRW 2,00,00,000 for KRW 2,000,000,000 for KRW 1,000,000,000,000 for KRW 1,000,000,000,000 won for KRW 2,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for KRW 2,000,000,000,000 won for KRW 1,000,000,000,000 won for KRW 2,000,000,000,000,000 won for KRW 3,00,00,00,000,000,00,000,00 won for KRW 1,5,000,00,00.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.