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

National High Court 2005J 3507 ( November 03, 2005)

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

With the preparation of a written confirmation to a tax official, the monthly rent is memoryed only by 200 only, there is a question as to whether the rent was paid in the door-to-written answer and some payment was made using the parking lot, but the correct amount was not memory, and there was no omission of rent by considering all other circumstances.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on June 21, 2005 was revoked for the first term of 200, 100,440 won for the second term of 200, 669,200 won for the second term of 200, 662,010 won for the first term of 201, 792,720 won for the second term of 2001, 792,720 won for the second term of 2002, 795,160 for the first term of 202, 710,630 won for the second term of 202, 806,560 for the first term of 203, 773,930 won for the second term of 203, 741, 300 for the first term of 204, 204, 280 won for the second term of 204.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The main text of the appeal is as follows: 100,400 won for the first period of January 2000 among the purport of the appeal by the chief of the appeal seems to be a clerical error in the first period of 200,440 won for the first period of 200).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a business operator who runs a real estate rental business under the trade name of ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”). The instant building was leased to ○○○○○ from May 9, 200 to July 6, 2001; from July 7, 2001 to December 19, 2002 to ○○○○○○○○; from December 20, 2002 to December 20, 207; from December 20, 2004 to 30, 207; from 205 to 30, 204; or from 207, 209, 207, 309, 209, 207, 2009, 204, 2009, 207, 2004, 2009, 2009, 2007.

C. On June 21, 2005, the Defendant: (a) leased the instant building to three persons, such as ○○, Ma○○, and Ma○○○; (b) leased the instant building from ○○○; (c) KRW 2,700,00 per month from ○○; (d) KRW 330,00 per month from ○○○○ from December 20, 202 to March 31, 2004; and (e) reported the tax base of KRW 2,77,104, 278, 274, 278, 278, 264, 278, 278, 2616, 206, 306, 27, 278, 278, 264, 276, 200; and (d) imposed monthly rent on the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, 6, Eul evidence 1-1 to 10, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, 3, 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff leased the instant building to ○○○○ for lease on a deposit basis with KRW 1.50 million, the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 20,000,000 from ○○○○○ through several times due to the Plaintiff’s failure to receive the remainder of KRW 20,000,000,000,000 for interest and parking fees for the remainder and remainder of the said lease deposit, and did not receive any rent. Moreover, the Plaintiff leased the instant building to ○○○○○○ for lease on a deposit basis with KRW 1.5,00,00,000 from 1.5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for the remainder and remainder of the lease on a deposit basis. However, the Plaintiff did not receive any difference from ○○○○ to receive any interest and parking fees for the remainder and remainder on several occasions.

B. Determination

First, it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff had been present at 00,000 won for 20,000 won per month from May 9, 200 to July 6, 201, and that the Plaintiff had been present at 20,000 won for 10,02,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,00 won for 1.

나아가 원고가 조○○으로부터 2001. 7. 7.부터 2002. 12. 19.까지 매월 270만 원의 월세를 받고도 2001년 2기분 16,815,753원, 2002년 1기분 16,631,643원, 2002년 2기분 15,612,946원의 임대수입을 누락했는지에 관하여 본다. 원고가 조○○으로부터 2001. 7. 7.부터 2002. 12. 19.까지 매월 270만 원의 월세를 받았다는 점에 부합하는 듯한 을제2호증의 2의 기재는, 이 사건 소송이 제1심에 계속중인 2007. 8. 13. 세무공무원 김○○이 조○○을 조사하고 작성한 문답서에 조○○이 김○○으로부터 원고에게 매월 임대료를 지급한 적이 있느냐는 질문을 받고 주차장 사용으로 일부 지급한 적이 있으나 정확한 금액은 기억이 나지 않는다고 답변했다고 기재되어 있는 점(을 제4호증의2)에 비추어 •굇�어렵고, 을 제2호증의 1, 을 제5호증의 2의 각 기재만으로는 원고가 조○○으로부터 2001. 7. 7.부터 2002. 12. 19.까지 매월 270만 원의 월세를 받았다고 인정하기에 부족하며, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다. 게다가 원고가 조○○으로부터 2001. 7. 7.부터 2002. 12. 19.까지 매월 270만 원의 월세를 받았다고 하더라도, 그 임대수입은 분기별로 1,620만 원이어서 이 사건 처분의 전제가 된 누락금액인 2001년 2기분 16,815,753원, 2002년 1기분 16,631,643원보다 적고, 2002년 2기분 임대수입 1,620만 원에서 원고가 2002년 2기분 부가가치세 과세표준으로 신고한 299만 원을 공제한 금액은 1,321만 원이어서 이 사건 처분의 전제가 된 2002년 2기분 누락금액인 15,612,946원보다 적음은 계산상 명백하다. 따라서 어느 모로 보나 원고가 2001년 2기분 16,815,753원, 2002년 1기분 16,631,643원, 2002년 2기분 15,612,946원의 임대수입을 누락했다고 볼 수 없으므로, 원고가 위 임대수입을 누락했음을 전제로 한 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

Finally, the amount of 30,00 won per month from December 2002 to March 31, 204, 300, 204, 2714, 208, 30,000 won per month from April 1, 200 to December 20, 204, 18, 204, 30,000 won per month from 204, 207, 30,000 won per month from 20, 207, 30,000 won per month from 204, 207, 204, 30,000 won per month from 20,000 won per month from 204, 204, 30,000 won per month from 20,000 won per month from 20,34,000 won per month from 20,000 won per month from 204.

Ultimately, the instant disposition should be revoked in its entirety due to its illegality.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, and it is revoked and it is so decided as per Disposition with the plaintiff's claim accepted.