Appropriateness of the assertion that the tax base of the leased workplace was erroneously calculated as a result of the tax investigation

In light of the above various circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the entire amount transferred to the Plaintiff does not appear as rent, and only KRW 500,000 among them is the rent for the said store.

Article 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the first term of October 1, 2006 exceeds 4,842,430 won in the imposition of value-added tax for the first term of 2004; the amount exceeding 4,842,430 won in the imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 2004; the amount exceeding 4,982,030 won in the imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 2004; the amount exceeding 4,597,710 won in the imposition of value-added tax for the first term of 2005; the amount exceeding 4,597,710 won in the imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 205; and the amount exceeding 8,10,130 won in the imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 205

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/2 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant.

The defendant's imposition of value-added tax for the first term of October 1, 2006 against the plaintiff 7,842,400 won, value-added tax for the second term of 2004 8,758,200 won, value-added tax for the first term of 2005 8,197,010 won, value-added tax for the second term of 2005 8,100,130 won for the second term of 205 , respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 26, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of ○○○○○-dong, 7288-○, and 2,000 square meters of 2,000 square meters of 2,000 square meters of 2,000 square meters of 2,00,000 Sungnam-dong, which was the former husband, due to the division of property according to divorce from the husband, and succeeded to the status of the mother who was the lessor or entered into a new lease contract and operated a real estate rental business. The details of lease of each store of the building of this case from 2004 to 2005 are as stated in the attached Form lease status, and the details of transfer of rent, etc. to the Plaintiff’s account are as stated in the attached Form deposit details.

B. Upon filing a value-added tax return on the lease business of the building of this case with the Defendant, the Plaintiff filed each of the said stores’ rent for KRW 51,508,938 on the basis of the amount stated in the item of “monthly rent” in the attached Table 2004, 66,355,258 won, 64,595,571 won, and 66,237,497 won, respectively.

C. On 2006, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office: (a) leased the pertinent building as rent indicated in the item of "Icecean (HU)", unlike the initial report of Nos. 101 among the instant building; (b) 102 underground; (c) 103, 101, 102, 104, 106, 201, and 401; and (c) accordingly, the said store's lease income was leased as one of the rent indicated in the item of "Icean (HU)"; and (d) notified the Defendant of the omission of the rent revenue by the taxable period of the adjusted building, such as the statement of "The omitted amount of rent revenue by each taxable period of the building".

D. Accordingly, on October 1, 2006, the Defendant revised the first tax base in 2004 as KRW 100,145,295, the second tax base in 2004 as KRW 129,627,977, the second tax base in 2005 as KRW 126,231,927, and the second tax base in 2005 as KRW 129,782,945, respectively, and imposed the Plaintiff the second tax base in 2004 as value-added tax in 7,842,400, the second tax base in 2004 as value-added tax in 204 as value-added tax in 7,758,200, the second tax base in 2004 as value-added tax in 204, value-added tax in 8,197,010, and value-added tax in 205 as value-added tax in 200,1300.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 through 4, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 5-1 through 10, Gap evidence 8, 9-1, 2, Gap evidence 10-1 through 5, Gap evidence 18-1 through 22, Gap evidence 19, Gap evidence 20 through 23-1 through 22, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 20-2, and the purport of whole pleadings, each of the statements, images and arguments, and the purport of the whole arguments

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) As to 101 underground (88 00)

On October 200, Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff’s relative, used 101,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,00.

(2) As to ground No. 102 (S.)

On July 31, 2001, 2001, he was leased 102,00,000,000 underground as security deposit of 40,000 won and rent of 80,000 won (one million,00,000 won from June 6, 2002). After concluding a lease agreement with the non-party 10,50,000 won, which is a e-mail in Kim○-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O, the lease relationship maintained until July 31, 2004. After the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the building of this case, it was erroneous

(3) As to 103 underground (○○ printing)

On March 9, 199, Nonparty 103, underground 103,00 won, monthly rent of 120,000 won, monthly rent of 120,000 won, and the lease period of 12 months from March 9, 199, and thereafter renewed the lease agreement under the same terms and conditions each year. On March 31, 2004, the Plaintiff terminated the lease contract and removed the lease contract, and the Plaintiff was paid once with the rent of 1.2 million won after acquiring the ownership of the building of this case. Thus, it was erroneous to calculate the rent of the said store as 2.5 million won.

(4) As to 102 heading (00 air conditioners)

On December 31, 2001, 2001, ○○○○ leased KRW 102,00,000 (the lease agreement was renewed on December 27, 2003 and increased to KRW 40,00,000 per month) and rent of KRW 50,000 per month, and around that time, ○○○ was the parent of the parent of the parent of the child involved in the traffic accident and lent 20,000,000 won to the ○○○ as collateral. The Plaintiff’s 170,000 won, which the Plaintiff was transferred from the ○○ to April 2004, was the sum of the above rent of KRW 50,00 and KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won and KRW 37,50,000,00,00.

(5) As to 104 U.S. (O.)

On November 1, 2003, 2003, 104 units of 104 units of 55 million won per month, and 1.5 million won per month. On June 30, 2005, 2005, the Plaintiff re-leased the said store to Kim-Won with a deposit of 55 million won per month, and rent of 50,000 won per month. The Plaintiff received monthly remittance of 2050,000 won from the lessee of 105 units of the instant building while Kim-W transferred rent to the Plaintiff by Kim-W-W-W-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-

(6) As to 201 No. 201 (○○)

On July 5, 1992, the Plaintiff transferred 10 million won to the Nonparty ○○ Chang Chang who had the main room at the time of the transfer of 00 million won of the facility and the collection of the house, which he had operated on the same day, to set up a collateral security right at 46-○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW KRW 150,000,000 won, whichever was later on November 30, 1997.

(7) As to 401 (00 et al.)

Around 2001, the regular mother agreed to lend 300 million won of the construction cost of the publicly notified facility to Kim Jong-soo, which is his own after-time Kim Jong-soo, to operate the publicly notified source from 401 to pay 500,000 won per month. On June 4, 2001 of the same year, he leased 401 of the above loan to Kim Jong-soo, with a deposit of KRW 60,000,000 per month, and with a deposit of KRW 70,000,000 per month, but again leased the rent of KRW 50,000 per month (the deposit shall be reduced again to KRW 60,00,000). Since the portion that exceeds 50,000 won of the money remitted to the Plaintiff’s account, it was erroneous in calculating the entire amount of the above loan.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act

C. Determination

(1) As to 101 underground (88 00)

In light of the location and business district of the building of this case, the size of the store of this case, and the rent for other stores in the building of this case as stated in the attached Form 1, 200,000 won per month from October 31, 2002 to August 23, 2004, it is reasonable to view that the above rent for the above store was KRW 1,00,000 per month. On the contrary, it is reasonable to view that the above store was leased to the above store of KRW 20,000 per month, or that the money transferred to the above account was included in the amount of KRW 30,000,000,000,000 from October 31, 2002 to August 23, 2004, there is no other evidence that can be seen as such.

(2) As to ground No. 102 (S.)

In light of the following facts: (a) from June 3, 2002 to February 18, 2004, Parkjin-jin, a lessee of the above store, remitted the monthly rent of KRW 2.8 million to the Plaintiff’s account; (b) in light of the use of the building of this case and the commercial zone, the size of the above store, and the rent for other stores in the building of this case, it is reasonable to deem that the above store rent was KRW 2.8 million per month; and (c) contrary to this, it is difficult to believe that each of the items in the evidence No. 12-1 and the evidence No. 28, which correspond to the fact that the above store rent was leased to KRW 1 million per month. Since the last date of the above transfer, it is difficult to believe that the above rent was exempted or reduced between Parkjin-jin and July 31, 2004, the expiration date of the lease contract, there is no reason to regard that the above period was transferred to the Plaintiff’s account during the above period.

(3) As to 103 underground (○○ printing)

On July 30, 200 and November 11, 2003 of the same year, the tenant of the above store transferred 2.5 million won to the Plaintiff’s account. 5 million won transferred on June 17, 2003 to the Plaintiff can be seen as the rent for the two-month period of the above store. 14.5 million won transferred on February 27, 2004, excluding the remittance of KRW 14.5 million to the Plaintiff on November 25, 2003, if it is difficult to view that the amount was transferred on July 30, 2003 and the rent for the six-month period was paid without paying the rent for the above six-month period, and it is difficult to view that the amount was similar to the rent for the above 6-month period, and the size and the rent for the above 14.5 million won is similar to the rent for the above 200,000 won for the above 200,000 won.

(4) As to 102 heading (00 air conditioners)

As stated in the separate sheet, ○○, a tenant of the above store, was difficult to view that the rent of the above store was KRW 1.7 million from February 23, 2002 to April 6, 2004 each month from May 6, 2004, and KRW 1.9 million each month from May 6, 2004 to September 5, 2004 (it appears that the increased rent of KRW 1.6 million out of KRW 1.9 million transferred on May 31, 2004), in view of the location and business district of the building of this case, the size of the above store, and the rent of the other stores in the above building, it is difficult to view that the above rent of the store was KRW 1.7 million from April 2004 to KRW 1.9 million from May 204, 204 to be the maximum amount of KRW 1.9 million from the Plaintiff’s account to be paid to the ○○○, a witness of this case, or the above amount was transferred to the account of KRW 3 million.

(5) As to 104 No. (O.)

In light of the location and business district of the building of this case, the size of the store of this case, and the rent for other stores in the building of this case as stated in the attached Table 10,50,000 won from November 28, 2003 to August 31, 2004, it is reasonable to deem that the above rent for the above store was KRW 2,50,000,000,000,000,000 won per month. On the contrary, it is difficult to view that the above rent for the above store was leased at KRW 1,50,000,000,000,000 won per month, or that the rent was reduced at KRW 5,555,00,000 from the lessee of this case under 105, or that Kim Jong-ri transferred it together with its rent, and there is no other evidence to believe otherwise.

(6) As to 201 (0000 rooms)

According to the evidence No. 16-1,2,35, and evidence No. 25-1, and evidence No. 1,25-2 of the evidence No. 16-2, it is recognized that he/she created a collateral security on July 8, 1992 in order to transfer ○○○-ro facilities and equipment to Ansan on July 5, 1992 and to secure the remainder of KRW 130 million among the transfer proceeds.

However, in light of the fact that the establishment registration of a neighboring building was already cancelled on November 17, 1994, and that the above money is not the Plaintiff’s claim but the money is the Plaintiff’s claim, it is difficult to view that the money was included in the transfer proceeds. An Ansan Chang-si was transferred to the Plaintiff’s account around July 2002, around September 2002, around December 31, 2002, around December 31, 2002, around September 2002, around May 2003, 2004, and around 3050,000 won was transferred to the Plaintiff’s account. In light of the location of the building of this case, the size of the store of this case, the size of the store, and the rent of other stores within the building of this case, the above rent of the store is not only KRW 405,000,000,000,000.

(7) As to 401 (00 et al.)

According to the statement No. 2-4 of the evidence No. 2-4, although it is recognized that Kim ○, the lessee of the above store, has remitted money to the Plaintiff’s account, as stated in the attached Form No. 2-4, it is difficult to view the entire transferred money as the rent for the above store in light of the following various factual relations:

In other words, according to Gap evidence No. 17-6 and witness Kim Jong-soo's testimony, 401 among the buildings of this case had not been leased for 4 years from 1997 to 2001 and remains a public room. The plaintiff, due to these circumstances, he borrowed 300 million won, which is 30 million won as the fund for the installation of the public notice board around 2001, and then performed the construction of the above 401 public notice board, 60 million won as the deposit amount, 1 million won as the rent, 70 million won as the rent, 50,000 won as the monthly rent, and 60 million won as the above 50 million won as the deposit amount, 50 million won as the deposit amount was reduced from 197 to 2001, 70 million won as the loan was actually remitted to the plaintiff from 500,000 won to 150,000 won as the loan amount.

(8) Legitimate value-added tax

If the amount of value-added tax to be additionally paid by the Defendant from January 2004 to February 2005 is deducted from the amount of money remitted by Kim○ to the Plaintiff’s account as the Plaintiff’s account, the tax base shall be 81,963,475 won for January 1, 2004, 102,35,247 won for February 2004, 98,959,197 won for January 1, 2005, and 102,510,215 for February 2005, and the amount of value-added tax to be additionally paid by the Plaintiff shall be 102,842,430 won for January 204, 2004, 204, 4,982,030 won for February 4, 2005, 597, 209, 205, 2005, 205, 209.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.