Seoul High Court 2008Nu11053 (Law No. 25, 2008)

Suwon District Court 2007Guhap2136 (O2, 13, 2008)

The legitimacy of the assertion that there is no monthly rent for recovery from omission of income from the rental business

Although it is alleged that a real estate rental business operator entered into a contract only as a deposit for lease on a deposit basis and did not have received monthly rent, it is confirmed by a witness questioning that the lessee was leased on a monthly basis, and there is no proof by the plaintiff, tax disposition by the tax authorities

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Determination and correction of Articles 13 and 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined. However, the grounds of appeal by the appellant are not included in the grounds prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal or are recognized as groundless. Thus, the appeal is dismissed under Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per

[Insuwon District Court 2007Guhap2136, Oct. 13, 2008]

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on June 21, 2005, for the first term of 200, for the second term of 200, for the second term of 200, for the second term of 669,200, for the first term of 101, for the second term of 2001, for the second term of 2001, for the second term of 792,720, for the second term of 2001, for the first term of 2002, for the first term of 795,160, for the first term of 202, for the second term of 202, for 710,630, for the second term of 203, for the first term of 203, for 773,930, for the second term of 203, for 1741,300, for the first term of 204, for second term of 2085.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, under the trade name of ○○○○-dong 271-11, ○○○○○○-dong 200 (hereinafter “instant building”), was a business operator who is engaged in real estate rental business, and did not report the value-added tax for the first and second years in 2000, and the value-added tax base for the first and second years in 2001 through 2004 was 24,89,098 won (the value-added tax base for the second period in 2001, each 3,770,000 won for the second period, 2,90,000 won for the second period in 202, 3,675,000 won for the first period in 203, 2,300, 2,3000 won for the second period in 203, 204, 247, 294, 2004 won for the second period in 2004.

B. The Defendant reported the tax evasion to the Plaintiff, and conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff, and conducted an additional tax investigation on the Plaintiff’s 200 to 157,104,56 won [the total amount of rent revenues for the first period of 200 to 204, 157,093 won, 17,671,232 won for the second period of 200 to 12,544,246 won for the first period of 2001, 16,815,753 won for the second period of 201, 16,631,643 won for the first period of 200, 2002, 15,612, 946 won for the second period to 200, 2000 won for the second period to 208, 2000 won for the second period to 208, 2003, 2008 won for the second period of value-added tax.

[Reasons for Recognition] A.5, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff leased the instant building to ○○○○ for the deposit of KRW 150 million, the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 20 million from the remainder of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the lease, which was paid KRW 2632,00,000 from ○○○ for the remainder of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the lease of the lease of the lease of the building of this case, and did not receive any payment. The Plaintiff leased the instant building to ○○○○○○ for the deposit of KRW 150,000,000,000 from 150,000,000,000 won for the remainder of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the lease of the lease of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff was paid the remainder of the deposit of KRW 20,000,000 from ○○○, etc. on several occasions.

B. Facts of recognition

The plaintiff's evidence 2, 4 through 6, 4-1, 2, and 5-1 [50,000 won (50,000 won) out of the above documents are presumed to have been authenticity of the whole document because there is no dispute over the part of the above documents, but there is no evidence to recognize that the part of the plaintiff's name was forged by Kim ○, 2-1, 3, and 5-2] among the above documents 2-1, 300,000 won and 2-1,000,000 won (including rent 1,50,000,0000 won) were delivered to 2-1,000,000 won among the above 3-2,000,000 won and 2-1,000,000 won were delivered to 2-1,000 won, and the plaintiff was paid to 2-2,000,000 won,00 won,00 won.

C. Sub-decision

Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate on the premise that the plaintiff obtained a lease income from the plaintiff's real estate, such as rent and parking fee, from Lee ○○, Cho ○○, and Ma○○.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.