Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap4056 ( October 22, 2010)

early 2009west3091 ( December 29, 2009)

It is not recognized that the fees for arranging sale have not been paid.

In light of the fact that a real estate brokerage contract, etc. is a document that can be easily prepared after the fact, there is no data that has reported the income of the commission for a part of a seller of real estate, and there is no financial data that can objectively verify the payment of the commission, etc., the sales brokerage contract, etc. is not recognized to have been paid accordingly.

2010Nu26713 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax, etc.

XXpft Co., Ltd.

O Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap4056 decided July 22, 2010

May 25, 2011

June 22, 2011

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 defendant's disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 1,519,085,410 and corporate tax of KRW 3,032,142,650 imposed on the plaintiff on February 2, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why this Court is used in relation to this case are as follows. The reasons for the judgment of the court of the first instance shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The term "the auditor KimA of the plaintiff seems to have entered into an audit and inspection agreement with the plaintiff 7th day" is as follows.

In light of the fact that the plaintiff's director Kim Yong-CC was concluded (the plaintiff's confirmation letter prepared by HeB stated that the contract was entered into with the "Goltan KimCC" (Evidence 3), the HuB signed the confirmation letter without confirming the contents on the wind that the tax official found in the court of first instance to the house and his husband to the house, and that the order received from the other party at the time was entered into the contract was stated as the "LO KimCC of the non-party company", the Kim Jong-A was not a director of the plaintiff company as the director of the non-party company, and there was no record of working as the auditor of the plaintiff company or the non-party company as the auditor of the non-party company at the time, and about two years after the conclusion of the contract for the lease of the sales office of this case, it is difficult to accept the lease agreement by the plaintiff director Kim Jong-B with the above statement that the plaintiff's director Kim Jong-B made the non-party D to register the issue with the non-party Da's phone number No. 4 (Evidence No. 6).

The following shall be added, following up to the 10th day below the 9th day:

[E, on October 206 and November 2006, prior to the preparation of a sales agency contract and a sales contract, concluded a memorandum of understanding that grants a large number of buyers the status of priority negotiation object and received the sales price (No. 1,20, and No. 23-3 of each evidence No. 14, No. 20, No. 20, and No. 23-3 of each evidence No. 1, No. 20), and E, claiming that the Plaintiff carried out the sales agency for the non-party company, has received the sales price directly from the buyer (in accordance with the evidence No. 17, the receipt prepared at the time is stated as 'E'), and deposited it to the Plaintiff in their names (No. 10-4 of evidence No. 10)];

○ 11. The following shall be added to the end of the seventh day of the 11st:

[The plaintiff submitted the real estate brokerage commission contract, settlement statement, receipt, global income tax declaration and statement of payment (A. 14, 25-33) as evidence of the assertion that the non-party company agreed to pay 5 million won or 10 million won per store to nine persons, such as KimF, and that the non-party company was engaged in the real estate sales agency service by arranging the buyer.

However, in light of the fact that the real estate brokerage commission contract, settlement statement, receipt, etc. can be easily prepared after the fact, there is no data to report the income of the commission with respect to KimF KimA, and KimGG among the buyers, and that there is no income payer in the global income tax return filed by the remaining six persons, and there is no financial data to objectively verify the payment of the commission, each of the above evidence alone is not recognized to have been offered by 9 persons, such as KimF, for the non-party company and received brokerage fees accordingly).

2. Conclusion

The appeal is dismissed.