Suwon District Court-2018-Gu Joint-69845 (2019.05.02)

Commencement date of housing construction and sales business

In case of housing construction and sales business, the starting date of business shall be deemed the starting date of each multi-household house in this case where the supply of goods prescribed in Article 6 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act commences

Article 27-6 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2019Nu10890 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.

Maap○

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2018Guhap69845 Decided May 2, 2019

July 3, 2019

July 24, 2019

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of global income tax of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on August 11, 2017 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following Paragraph 2: 'judgment on the assertion of violation of the principle of trust and good faith'; therefore, Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 8 of the Civil Procedure

420 shall be quoted as it is by the main sentence of Article 420.

2. Determination on the assertion of violation of the principle of good faith

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant notified the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff constitutes a person subject to the application of the simple expense rate of global income tax that reverts to the year 2015.” The Plaintiff reported and paid the global income tax that reverts to the year 2015 by applying the simple expense rate. However, unlike the above notification, the Defendant applied the standard expense rate to the Plaintiff. The instant disposition was unlawful by infringing the Plaintiff’s trust trust that believed that the instant disposition was subject to the application of the simple expense rate.

B. Determination

In light of the facts stated in the evidence Nos. 12, 12, and 1-1 of the evidence No. 1, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was subject to the application of simple expense rate, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit without need to review it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.