Incheon District Court-2015-Gu 50911 ( October 30, 2015)

It is insufficient to recognize that the total sum of the amounts appropriated for sales exceeds the total sum of the amounts calculated for purchase even though it is not the purchase.

(as in the judgment of the first instance court) It must be specifically demonstrated that the aggregate of the amounts treated as earnings exceeds the aggregate of the amounts treated as losses.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

2015Nu6624 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax, etc.

C. C.A.

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

April 21, 2016

May 26, 2016

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 revoked the disposition of imposition of KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the year 201, which was rendered on September 1, 2014 to the plaintiff, and the notification of change in the amount of income made on August 21, 2014 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to those used or added as follows. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts to be used or added.

○ From 14 to 18 of the second page are as follows.

C. At the time of the preliminary return of the value-added tax for the first time in 2011, the Plaintiff deducted the input tax amount for one sheet (the supply price of KRW 50,908,00,00; hereinafter referred to as “the first tax invoice of this case”) out of the total six electronic tax invoices (the supply price of KRW 50,908,00; hereinafter referred to as “the first tax invoice of this case”); one sheet (the supply price of KRW 24,242,001; hereinafter referred to as “the second tax invoice of this case”) out of the total 12 electronic tax invoices issued in 201 as set forth in paragraph (b) 2; and then included the total purchase amount of KRW 75,150,000 as the purchase amount as the Defendant’s input tax amount at the time of the corporate tax return for the year 2011.

In the third place, "the deduction of the input tax amount shall be made" as "the reporting of the corporate tax".

○ Part 3 13 (Non-deductibles) "Non-deductibles" are added to deductible expenses.

○ Part 16 of the third party 16 states that “If a tax invoice is excluded from deductible expenses, the purchase price on the tax invoice shall be included in deductible expenses.”

(i) describe 24,149,000 Won or 24,242,00 won;

○ From Nos. 21 to 4 of the 3rd page 21 (c) (the part concerning determination on the assertion on exclusion from the gross income of official leave management expenses and inspection allowances) are as follows.

C. Determination as to the exclusion of the sales equivalent to the purchase price of the tax invoice Nos. 1 and 2 of this case from the gross income

The plaintiff's business is merely entrusted with multi-family housing and received commission fees. In the case of multi-family housing with no business registration certificate or identification number (rental apartment, etc.), the sales and purchase on behalf of the plaintiff and the sales (revenue) on the settlement of accounts were reflected in the contract payment or management expenses account. Thus, if the amount to be excluded from the plaintiff's income is not the plaintiff's sales, as alleged by the plaintiff, because the public price management expenses forCC apartment, the public price management expenses for DD apartment and inspection expenses are not the plaintiff's sales, and the purchase expenses and inspection expenses are not the amount to be excluded from the plaintiff's income, as in the case of this case 1 and 2 tax invoice, the amount treated as the plaintiff's purchase (expenses) should be excluded from the deductible expenses. Thus, even if the purchase amount corresponding to the purchase amount on the tax invoice 1 and 2 of this case is not the plaintiff's sales, in order to deduct the amount treated as the amount of gross income by appropriating it as the plaintiff's sales, the total purchase amount appropriated by the plaintiff's sales amount and its sales should not be appropriated.

However, considering all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize that the total amount appropriated as the sales exceeds the total amount appropriated as the purchase even though it is not the purchase by the Plaintiff, even if it is not the purchase by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to recognize it (the Plaintiff also has a right to issue a tax invoice but it is difficult to specify the corresponding sales because the sales are not issued). This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

Following the 5th page 11, “The plaintiff alleged that the amount of the tax invoice Nos. 1 and 2 of this case was paid in each apartment management complex, and thus, it was not leaked out of the company. However, the notice of change in the amount of income of this case was made on the ground that the amount of the tax invoice Nos. 1 and 2 of this case was not paid but was falsely appropriated at the plaintiff’s expense, and the plaintiff’s assertion was erroneous.”

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.