Changwon District Court 201Guhap3591 (2012.05)

Since the act of selling and selling real estate is shown as part of the business activity aimed at profit, it shall be viewed as business income.

Since the plaintiff's act of selling and selling real estate is judged to be conducted with continuity and repetition to the extent that it can be seen as part of the business activity for profit, the disposition imposing global income tax on business income is legitimate.

(original)Revocation of the detailed and disposition of global income, etc.

xAA

1. ○ head of tax office; 2. ○ head of tax office.

Changwon District Court Decision 201Guhap3591 Decided July 5, 2012

August 29, 2013

October 10, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants and the changed claim in exchange in the trial are all dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The imposition of additional tax on the Plaintiff is revoked. The imposition of additional tax on the first instance court's 205 tax imposed on the Plaintiff; the first instance court's 205 tax imposed on the second instance court's 205 tax amount; the first instance court's imposition of additional tax on the first instance court's 1, 2006 tax amount; the second instance court's imposition of additional tax on the second half year's 205 tax amount; the second instance court's imposition of additional tax on the second year's 205 tax amount; the second instance court's imposition of additional tax on the second year's 205 tax amount; the second instance court's imposition of additional tax on the second year's 205 tax amount; the second instance court's imposition of additional tax on the second year's 205 tax amount; and the first instance court's imposition of additional tax on each of the second years' 205 tax amount's 201.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

"The court's explanation concerning this case is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except as follows: ① the dismissal of Section 1. A among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in Section 2 below; ② the addition of Section 32 through 34, 36, 38, and Eul No. 24 through 29 (including each number) to the column for the second 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and the special agreement to pay the 6th 14th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th

A. The Plaintiff traded real estate as indicated in [Attachment 2]. The Defendants determined that the Plaintiff’s said real estate transaction constituted real estate transaction subject to business income, and determined that the Plaintiff’s said real estate transaction constituted four items of real estate transaction in 205 and at least four items of transaction number 1 through 4, 2006 in the said real estate transaction (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate,” the pertinent real estate is referred to as “the instant real estate”). As to the transfer margin of real estate, the Defendants: (a) on January 17, 2011, the director of the tax office imposed an additional tax on the global income tax of 200,000 won (including additional tax OO) for the second term portion on January 1, 201; and (b) on February 1, 2011, the said director of the tax office imposed an additional tax of 200,0000 won (including additional tax of 20,000 won); and (c) on February 205, 20111.O.

"The head of the Changwon Tax Office revised the principal tax on global income tax for December 17, 2012, which belongs to the year 2005 on which the lawsuit of this case was pending, as the OOOO members from the OOO members, the additional tax as the OO members from the OO members, the principal tax on global income tax for the year 2006 from the OO members, the additional tax as the OO members from the OO members, and the additional tax as the OO members from the OO members (hereinafter "the disposition of this case")." 3.

Therefore, the part of the principal tax of this case among the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. The part of the penalty tax of this case, which is changed in exchange at the court of first instance, is dismissed as it is without merit (the lawsuit seeking revocation of each disposition of first instance among the dispositions of first instance, is withdrawn due to a change in the exchange of litigation conducted at the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of first instance becomes null and void)