Incheon District Court 2010Guhap3408 (23 August 2012)

2010 Heavy2584

Whether the age club is an actual business operator.

The claimant who is involved in the overall business and operates the age club as the general president is the person to whom the actual income belongs, and it is reasonable to impose the tax according to the substance of the loan if the substance of the contract constitutes the loan, regardless of the contract. In addition, the specified ratio of the sales paid to the wait does not constitute the service fee excluded from the tax base due to the nature of

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Nu30297 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.

Appellant and Appellant

Gangwon A

- Appellants

1. ○○ Head of the tax office 2. ○○○ Head of the tax office.

Incheon District Court Decision 2010Guhap3408 Decided August 23, 2012

August 16, 2013

September 27, 2013

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the corresponding plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On April 16, 2010, the head of ○○ Tax Office revoked each disposition of imposition specified in paragraph (1) of the attached disposition of imposition against the Plaintiff on April 16, 2010 and each disposition of imposition specified in paragraph (2) of the attached disposition of imposition against the Plaintiff by the head of ○○○○○ Tax Office on April 16, 2010.

Purport of appeal

Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be modified in the same manner as the purport of the claim.

Defendants shall be the defendants.

Paragraph (1) shall apply.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

In addition to the addition of the decision of the court of first instance to the 5th through 6th 12th Ga, the part concerning the 5th Gao and the 5th Gao Gao Gao Kao 2, and the decision of the plaintiff on new arguments in the court of first instance is as stated in the 2th Ga below.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

A. Parts (Nos. 5- 10 to 6- 12)

According to Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the number of each business permit) each of the following circumstances, the plaintiff can be acknowledged that the plaintiff entered into a contract with SouthB to transfer the age club building and its business rights to other OB on or before December 26, 2005, with the remaining OB on or before the purchase of the building of this case. However, in light of the above circumstances, the plaintiff's 3 through 6, 8 through 11, 13, and 15 (including each number), since the plaintiff entered into the contract with the remaining OB on or after the purchase of the building of this case, the plaintiff could not be seen as having entered into the contract with the remaining OB on or after the purchase of the building of this case.

B. Additional parts

The Plaintiff asserted that from January 2008 to November 12, 2008, the amount equivalent to the KRW OO was omitted from the calculation of necessary expenses at the time of the instant disposition. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s testimony of evidence Nos. 19 through 27 (including each number) and witness anti-D, as alleged in the Plaintiff, was omitted from the calculation of necessary expenses even though the amount was paid to employees during the above period, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the disposition of this case against the defendants shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance which has different conclusions is unfair, so it is revoked by accepting the appeal by the defendants, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.