Seocho 2013west 2939 ( October 07, 2013)

The instant disposition that the Plaintiff used the instant officetel from February 201, 201 for a duty-free business is lawful.

Although the former owner of the instant officetel leased it to a business office and used it for a taxable business, it is determined that the Plaintiff leased it for a residential purpose after the Plaintiff acquired it, and thus, the instant disposition was lawful.

Article 6 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap31530

CHAPTER 00

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

June 12, 2014

July 17, 2014

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Around March 2009, Nonparty A purchased from BB the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Seosandong 3 】 】00 x 00 mtel (the officetel with a size of 30.85 m2, hereinafter “instant officetel”) as fixed assets for business and received deduction of the input tax amount of KRW 7,305,480.

B. On April 12, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased the instant officetel from thisA for KRW 00 won; (b) decided to comprehensively acquire the instant officetel rental business; and (c) examined the special terms and conditions of the sales contract at the time.

C. On May 12, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant officetel at the same time, and registered the business for the purpose of real estate leasing on June 1, 2010. After which the Plaintiff reported and paid value-added tax on the instant officetel’s business, as follows.

D. On June 30, 201, the Plaintiff reported the closure of the instant officetel. On April 3, 2013, the Plaintiff did not comply with the Plaintiff’s obligation to report and pay value-added tax on the remaining goods upon closure of the business. On April 3, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of KRW 7,367,423 (10,00,000 as the tax amount to be reduced and deducted from KRW 5,84,384 as the main supply price, and plus KRW 1,63,126 as additional tax, and the amount to be paid plus KRW 1,63,126 as the tax amount) (hereinafter “instant disposition”). From February 2, 2011, the Defendant identified that the instant officetel was diverted to a residence business (residential) and included the deemed supply price in KRW 5,84,384,384 as the total tax amount to be exempted.

.

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and brought an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 14, 2013.

B. The Tax Tribunal decided to dismiss on October 7, 2013, and the Plaintiff appealed and filed the instant lawsuit on December 27, 2013.

[Ground for Recognition: without dispute; Gap evidence 1 to 3; Eul evidence 1 to 4, 6, 7;

[Purpose of the entire argument]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

After the former owner of the instant officetel received input tax deduction when he first acquired it, it was not verified that the instant officetel was leased to a business operator who used the instant officetel for business purposes, and had already been used for residence at the time the Plaintiff purchased it and had already been exempted from input tax. Thus, the instant disposition made by the Plaintiff is unlawful even if the former owner should be held liable for non-deduction of input tax for the portion exempted from input tax.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In general, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of disposition imposing tax, the burden of proving the tax-exempt facts should be borne by the person liable to impose tax. However, even if there is no direct evidence as to the tax-exempt facts, if the existence of the tax-exempt fact can be presumed by the theory that can be reasonably explained based on the indirect facts, etc. based on the empirical rule, it should be proven. Accordingly, unless there is an indirect fact that can be acknowledged in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process, the other party to the disposition imposing tax cannot be deemed to be an illegal disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirement unless it proves that the other party to the disposition imposing tax is not subject to the empirical rule or there are special circumstances that can exclude the application of the empirical rule as above in the pertinent case (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du6383, Sept. 22, 2006). Meanwhile, whether a house is leased subject to a tax-free disposition should be determined depending on whether the lessee uses the house as a permanent residence based on the objective use of the building in question, and if the lessee actually uses the object in question 297Nu 197.

In light of the above legal principles, this case’s return to the case, and the background and evidence of the above disposition

In addition, the entry of the evidence of subparagraphs B through B and the overall purport of the pleading shall be considered.

In full view of the following circumstances, the former owner of the instant officetel leased it to the office for business purposes and used it for the taxable business, but it is determined that the Plaintiff leased it to the office for business purposes and leased it for residence, and thus, the instant disposition is lawful.

1) On April 2, 2009, thisA leased the instant officetel at KRW 10 million to the representative EF of DDR, KRW 700,000,000,000 per month, and the FF used the instant officetel from April 2, 2009 to March 20, 2010, and at the time, the lease agreement entered into by the parties is written as the “business”.

2) This AA filed a lawsuit against the FF and D Co., Ltd. seeking delivery of the instant officetel. The complaint is written by the instant officetel as the Seoul Branch of the said D Co., Ltd. as the place of delivery.

3) According to the facts written by the head of the management office of the instant officetel submitted in the process of the above civil procedure, the head of the management office stated that around March 2010, the head of the management office was equipped with books or various administrative tools inside the instant officetel and the lessee was present to use them for the purpose of the office.

4) Upon purchasing the instant officetel on May 12, 2010, the Plaintiff leased the instant officetel in KRW 10 million, monthly rent in KRW 700,000,000 to Non-Party westG, and the use of the instant officetel as “business use” is indicated in the lease agreement concluded between the parties at the time.

5) The Plaintiff asserted that this case’s officetel was leased to the Seocho on April 30, 2010, and that himself succeeded to the relevant lease contract. However, in light of the fact that the date of the contract between the Plaintiff and thisA was on April 12, 2010 when the remainder payment date between the Plaintiff and this Agreement was on May 12, 2010; the date of the lease contract between the Plaintiff and Seo SeoG was on April 30, 2010; and that the lease contract between the Plaintiff and this Agreement was on May 12, 2010; and that the terms and conditions of business transfer and acquisition are stipulated as the terms and conditions of business transfer under a special contract between the Plaintiff and thisA as of May 12, 2010.

6) Around February 2011, the Plaintiff leased the instant officetel to Nonparty Hah, Hah, and Hah H, respectively.

In 2011, wage and salary income earners are confirmed to have worked in J Co., Ltd.

In addition to the above facts, considering that the Plaintiff comprehensively acquired the instant officetel rental business of this case, it is reasonable in light of the empirical rule to view that the instant officetel was leased for business purposes, and that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of it was also leased for business purposes, and that it was the first reasonable explanation from February 2011 to that it started to lease the instant officetel for residential purposes. Therefore, it may be presumed that the Plaintiff used the instant officetel for tax-free business from February 201 to February 201. If the Plaintiff asserted that it was legitimate to deem that the Plaintiff used the instant officetel as a tax-free business since May 12, 2010, in light of the above circumstances, even if the Plaintiff used the instant officetel for residential purposes even if it was rent for business purposes, and the Plaintiff used the instant officetel for a residential purpose, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff used the instant officetel for tax-free business since February 2011.

In response to the plaintiff's assertion, evidence Nos. 4 and 5, which are the occupancy records of the instant officetel, is the only entry. This alone is the fact that this is inferred as above.

of this state, as the case may be.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.