Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap9666 ( October 16, 2009)

early 208west2625 ( December 15, 2008)

because the money stated in the amount of money deposited or depository receipts is paid, it shall be deemed as the necessary expenses.

Since a contract is concluded and paid to a person who has gold-processed goods or a certificate of custody to pay the money stated in a quantity or certificate of custody equivalent to the gold-processed goods, such contract shall be deemed necessary expenses.

209Nu35797. Revocation of the imposition of value-added tax and global income tax;

권〇〇

〇〇세무서장

제1심 판결〇〇행정법원 2009.10.16.선고 2009구합9666판결

November 10, 201

December 22, 2010

1.The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke below shall be revoked.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 15,805,750 for the year 2003, in excess of KRW 14,720,197, among the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 14,720,750 for the year 2003, the portion exceeding KRW 19,175,911, among the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 20,222,91 for the year 2002, and the portion exceeding KRW 33,490,998, among the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 49,916,515 for the year 2004 for the same day, is revoked.

The following facts are acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 14,15,17,18, and the fact-finding results of this court's fact-finding inquiry about ○○ Cooperative.

1) The Plaintiff supplied a custody certificate corresponding to the money of the gold-free goods, gold-free goods, or the money of the gold-free goods to the Plaintiff, and received the money from the Plaintiff, △△△ Cooperative paid the gold-free goods or the money of the gold-free goods or the money of the gold-free goods in the form of a commendation to the crew of the gold-free goods or the money of the gold-free goods or the money of the money of the gold-free goods or the money of the money of the custody.

2) Family members delegated by △△△ public official or employee brought about gold and gift certificates from 202 to 2004 as follows, and the Plaintiff paid the price (According to the fact-finding conducted by this court on △ public official, some of those who the Plaintiff paid gold and gift certificates are deemed not to have been an employee of △△ public official, but the amount paid is similar to the amount paid to △ public official from 82,000 to 648,000 won, and in light of the original form and substance of 17, the said amount is presumed to have been paid to the family members, etc. entrusted with the authority to receive money equivalent to the amount of custody certificate from △ public official of △△ public official).

① On March 2, 2002, 200 won, including the payment of KRW 225,00,00 to the Gimima, paid KRW 2,928,000 to 9 times until August 26, 2002 (the payment was made in a bank transaction method using telephone).

② Until December 31, 2003, 200, 240,000 won was paid to 1,980,000 won to 1,980,000 won to 1,98,00 won to 2,40,000 won to 2,40,000 won to 2,40,000 won to 2,40

③ By 87 times until September 22, 2004, 2000 won was paid to 255,000 won to DaraCC (the price was paid by both a bank transaction method or a passbook deposit method using telephone).

3) The portion of the Plaintiff’s income is the amount of money that the Plaintiff paid to the employees, etc. of △△ Public, from the money received from △△ Public in return for the gold gift or custody certificate.

The Plaintiff’s calculation of the global income amount for the pertinent year is unlawful without deducting KRW 2,928,00, the amount paid in 2002 to 1,980,000, and the amount paid in 2003, and KRW 25,518,000, which was paid in 2004, from the Plaintiff’s employees, etc.

D. Determination as to the assertion on recognition of necessary expenses

The plaintiff asserts that the following necessary expenses, etc. were disbursed in 2002, 2003, and 2004.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not report the money claimed by the Plaintiff in the pertinent year to the necessary expenses, and that there was no such assertion in the preceding trial of the instant lawsuit, there was no evidence that the Plaintiff had entered into a transaction relationship with the relevant company, and that the Plaintiff did not receive a tax invoice from the other party to the transaction, such as the rightD (the Plaintiff is a person), it is legitimate to recognize the necessary expenses claimed by the Plaintiff.

(e) Justifiable tax amount;

The reasonable amount of tax calculated by subtracting the money paid to △△ public officials, etc. from the amount of global income shall be as follows:

(i) global income tax, in 2002 (Evidence 10,13,38);

Under the reduction of global income amounting to KRW 2,928,00, justifiable penalty is KRW 8,490,680, but it recognizes KRW 8,333,574, which was recognized at the time of the disposition of global income tax in this case, as additional tax (additional tax was calculated under the assessment of global income tax in this case).

(ii) global income tax, in 2003 (No. 9)

iii) global income tax, 2004 (No. 14)

3. Conclusion

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Plaintiff that exceeds the reasonable tax amount calculated above shall be revoked. The part of the disposition imposing global income tax in this case exceeding the reasonable tax amount shall be revoked