Since it is insufficient to recognize that the lessor has actually paid rent outside the country, the argument that the necessary expense deduction is groundless.

Necessary expenses are consistent with the concept of fairness to recognize the necessity of proof to taxpayers, and the existence of principal expenses, such as rent, etc., is consistent with the purport of adopting the standard expense rate system. Thus, a disposition that does not deduct rent that does not prove the fact of actual disbursement, is legitimate.

Article 80 (Determination and Correction)

2018Guhap20376 and revocation of the global income;

○ ○

00. Head of tax office

September 6, 2018

October 11, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 355,611,270 against the Plaintiff on September 4, 2017 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From April 2009, the Plaintiff operated a 'NNP store' in 48 as OOO-gu OO, which runs a 'NNP store' and a 'NP store', but closed on June 5, 2017.

B. BB director of the regional tax office, from February 21, 2017 to April 17, 2017, conducted an individual consolidated investigation on global income tax accrued from 2013 to 2015, and the Defendant recognized the Defendant as necessary expenses for taxation the amount of KRW 989,00,000 in total ( KRW 364,000,000 in 2013, and KRW 363,000 in 262,000,000 in 200 in 2014, and KRW 183,000,000 in 20,000 in 20,00 in 2013, 68,000,000 in 20,000 in 2014, 200,50 in 205).

C. On September 4, 2017, the Defendant issued a correction and notification (hereinafter “instant disposition”) of global income tax amounting to KRW 355,611,270 ( KRW 139,118,810, KRW 132,969, KRW 320, and KRW 83,523,140 reverted to year 2014) to the Plaintiff.

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the request for review on September 11, 2017, but was dismissed on November 3, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In calculating the income amount, only KRW 6,600,000 out of the rent of KRW 15,100,000 paid by the Plaintiff to the lessor is recognized as necessary expenses, and the remaining amount is 8,50,000,000 per month, and the sum of KRW 306,00,000 per three years is not deducted as necessary expenses.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of global income tax disposition, the burden of proof on the tax base, which is the basis of taxation, is on the tax authority, and the tax base is deducted from necessary expenses, and thus, the tax authority shall bear the burden of proof on income and necessary expenses in principle. However, since necessary expenses are only favorable to the taxpayer, and most of the facts generating necessary expenses are located in the territory under the control of the taxpayer and the tax authority is difficult to prove. Thus, if it is reasonable to prove the taxpayer in consideration of difficulty in proof or equity between the parties, it accords with the concept of fairness to recognize the necessity of proof on the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du1588, Sept. 23, 2004; 2007Du2955, Mar. 26, 2009).

2) The premise for the determination

Article 143(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the standard income rate system shall be abolished and introduced after Article 143 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act was amended on December 29, 2000 (amended on January 1, 2002). According to this, the income amount shall be calculated as "income amount - major expenses (purchase + personnel expenses + income expenses) - standard expenses (income amount x standard expense rate) - If the principal expenses are divided into necessary expenses and standard expenses in the standard expense rate method and the disbursement is objectively proved by documentary evidence, the necessary expenses are recognized as necessary expenses, and the remaining standard expenses are calculated by estimation. In calculating the income amount of the business income earner without the book, unlike the previous method in which the amount calculated by multiplying the standard income rate by the total income amount is the income amount, it is reasonable to recognize the standard expense rate system to calculate the income amount only when the principal expenses, such as material expenses and personnel expenses, are recognized as expenses incurred in the calculation of the income amount at the expense of the business operator without any evidence or evidence of the standard expense rate.

3) Specific determination

A) From 2013 to 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the lessor paid rent of KRW 15,100,000 per month to the lessor GG, and submitted A evidence of No. 3-7.

(1) According to the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (Protocol of Pleadings and Recording Notes), it is recognized that the lessor tolds the Plaintiff to increase the lease deposit and monthly rent on or around November 2010. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the lessor agreed to increase the lease deposit and monthly rent and paid the rent raised by the Plaintiff to the lessor accordingly.

(2) In addition, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 5 and 6 (Financial Data and M&C) of the Plaintiff’s bank account from July 5, 1999 to October 5, 1999, the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of KRW 12,00,000, June 18, 2003, and KRW 12,00,000,000 from June 16, 2004 to the lessor as monthly rent, it is insufficient to recognize that the said withdrawal was made even if the amount was paid as monthly rent from July 5, 199 to the lessor. Even if the amount was paid as monthly rent, it is not sufficient to prove that the rent was paid from 2013 to 2015, the taxable year of the instant disposition.

(3) The evidence No. 7 provides that the Plaintiff may prove the content that the Plaintiff prepared to send to the lessor. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid KRW 15,100,000 as monthly rent to the lessor.

(4) On the other hand, on the other hand, the lease contract submitted by the Plaintiff to the National Tax Service while making a request for examination of the instant disposition on the instant disposition is indicated as KRW 4,500,000 on monthly rent in 2013 and KRW 6,600,000 on 2015 (Evidence 2).

B) As such, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid rent of KRW 15,100,000 per month to the lessor GG from 2013 to 2015 only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 3-7, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the omission amount in necessary expenses. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.