logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.10.24 2014구합155
종합소득세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 12, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a joint agreement on the construction and sale of a new C apartment on the land, a company E-P ground (hereinafter “A-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P

B. On November 12, 2007, the Plaintiff received 800 million won (the remaining amount after deducting 1 billion won or tax 200 million won) and 60 billion won in return for the conclusion of the above joint project agreement from APD development and the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with EPD development to pay 300 million won on the same day and 50 million won on the same day, and the remaining 500 million won on the same day (hereinafter “instant agreement”). APD development paid 750 million won out of the amount under the instant agreement to the Plaintiff around December 31, 2007.

C. On May 30, 2013, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff did not report the global income tax amounting to KRW 1 billion in total, when it filed a global income tax return for the year 2007, and that the Plaintiff did not report the total amount of KRW 1 billion in income, and that on May 30, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the rectification of KRW 664,76,340, global income tax for the year 2007.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On June 24, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Defendant.

On July 16, 2013, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff was actually paid KRW 750 million according to the instant agreement as other income and corrected the total income tax for the year 2007 by reduction of KRW 419,029,430 according to the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on July 16, 2013.

E. On October 7, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for the instant disposition, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for examination on November 19, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The case.

arrow