The meaning of a house of the same person

Determination as to whether a house constitutes a club shall be made based on the number of club members, personal relations, building procedures, the name of a purchaser of a house site, owner of a building site, or a contractor for a building project, method of payment of building costs, method of settlement of profit and loss from the building, ownership of a house site and a house, and status of use after the building, etc. which are built by a cooperative under

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second period portion for the year 2003 against the Plaintiff on February 7, 2007, KRW 117,246,270, KRW 212,081,860, value-added tax for the first period portion for the year 2004, KRW 265,517,510, value-added tax for the second period portion for the year 2004, KRW 217,674,530, value-added tax for the first period for the year 2005, KRW 290,43,710, value-added tax for the second period for the year 205, KRW 65,152,620, KRW 724,237,940 for the global income tax for the year 205, and KRW 25,375,230 for the global income tax for the year 206.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. During the period from April 15, 2003 to December 30, 2005, the Plaintiff newly built and sold the instant house with 1491-1 large 1,340.2 square meters (24 large 1,010.3 square meters per 1491-24 large 1,010.3 square meters per 1491-1 large 329.9 square meters per 1491-1 large 329.9 square meters per 205, Nov. 11, 2005) and did not pay value-added tax and comprehensive income tax by deeming the instant house as being the same as the instant house and not subject to taxation.

B. On February 5, 2007, the Defendant issued a business registration ex officio on the premise that the Plaintiff was engaged in the housing construction and sales business after newly building and selling the instant housing, and imposed the value-added tax for the second period portion of the value-added tax for the year 2003, which was omitted for the Plaintiff, KRW 117,246,270, KRW 212,081,860, KRW 2004, value-added tax for the second period of the year 2004, KRW 265,517,510, value-added tax for the second period of the year 2005, KRW 217,674,530, value-added tax for the first period of the year 205, KRW 290,43,710, KRW 65,152,620, and KRW 724,737,940, and KRW 2537,205.

C. The Plaintiff requested an examination to the Board of Audit and Inspection on the instant disposition, but the Board of Audit and Inspection dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on April 25, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

This case’s housing is a so-called “house” constructed by investment by club members, and thus, the Plaintiff’s disposition was unlawful. Even if the Plaintiff is a housing construction and sales business operator, the Plaintiff’s input tax amount of KRW 890,715,336 on the construction cost should be deducted from the output tax amount. Since the filing period of global income tax in 2006 is until May 31, 2007, it is unreasonable to impose the global income tax for the year 2006 prior to the expiration of the filing period.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) From May 1, 1999 to August 31, 2004, the Plaintiff worked as the representative director of the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○○○-dong 1532-7 Seo-gu 406, and on April 15, 2003, the Plaintiff and the water collector agreed to transfer the ownership transfer registration to the person determined by the purchaser, by purchasing 3,972,80,000 square meters from Seo-gu ○○-dong 1491-24, Seo-gu, Seoul, Seoul, and 1491-1 to 329.9 square meters from Kim ○-1,329,90,000 won, respectively.

(2) On May 15, 2003, the Plaintiff paid a down payment of KRW 400 million and KRW 2 billion in total to the land seller on June 17, 2003, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff and the water collection dam on June 26, 2003. On January 12, 2004 and June 17, 2004, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff and the 14 other co-ownership.

(3) On the other hand, on June 23, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into the instant new housing construction contract with the commercial owner at KRW 7,315,00,000 (including value-added tax) in the name of the former owner of the land and the building permit under the name of Kim Jong-su, the former owner of the land (i.e., the floor area ratio from July 1, 2003 to 200%) and then changed the owner on December 26, 2005 to the Plaintiff and the non-party 15.

(4) The Plaintiff determined that it would be favorable for the construction company to sell the instant housing to increase the sale rate by itself, rather than for selling the instant housing by himself, and concluded the same agreement on July 1, 2003 with the right ○○○ on July 1, 200 with respect to the housing No. 101, which had been subject to the same agreement (the agreed amount of KRW 1,320,000,000) until June 29, 2004, the Plaintiff set the agreed amount per household from 1.2 billion to 1.6 billion to 1.6 billion for all 14 households (the agreed amount of KRW 19,542,00,000), and the initial agreement was concluded on November 15, 2005 with respect to the housing No. 102, which had been subject to the same agreement, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership registration on June 3, 201, remaining 206.

(5) During the period from September 30, 2003 to June 30, 2006, 10 copies of the tax invoice for the new housing construction project (supply price of KRW 8,907, 153, 353) were issued to the Plaintiff and the previous landowner Kim Young-young, who had not registered business.

(6) After concluding the instant new housing construction contract with the commercial building company, the Plaintiff changed the construction contract amount to KRW 8,470,000,000 on June 30, 2004. On October 4, 2005, the Plaintiff changed the construction contract amount to KRW 9,768,00,000. As such, the Plaintiff did not sign and affix a seal on the amendment agreement in the process of changing the construction contract amount.

(7) The instant housing was approved for use on December 30, 2005, and the Plaintiff did not have settled the profits and losses of the instant housing construction with the parties agreed to the same subparagraph until now.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, A.1,2,4,5,7,8,11 evidence, and 1-8 evidence

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading;

D. Determination

(1) Whether it is a house moving house in the instant case

In general, "house" means a house in which a group of people move into as an end-user through settlement procedures after jointly conducting a house-building project that leads to the selection and purchase of the site based on personal relations with a view to avoiding inconvenience and burden when each individual independently constructs a new house and promoting convenience such as building cost reduction and creation of close-friendly neighbors. Whether a house constitutes a house under common use after jointly conducting a house-building project that leads to construction work. Whether a house constitutes a house under common use should be determined based on whether it was actually constructed by a group having characteristics of a partnership under civil law, by taking into account all the circumstances such as the number of club members and their personal relations, the building procedure and the formation of a club, the time-oriented relationship between the number of club members, the building cost decision-making method for the new house project, the purchaser of the house site or the building owner or the building contractor of the building project, the method of settling profits and losses from the building, the ownership of the house site and the house, and the situation of use after the construction.

In the case of this case, the above facts and the following circumstances are inferred by the above recognition, namely, ① members of the same club of this case appear to have no common or personal relationship except for the demand for similar housing; ② members of the same club of this case appear to have no common or personal relationship until the sales contract and the intermediate payment was made; ② members of the real housing site were not formed by the time of the settlement of profits and losses after the completion of the house in this case; ② land sales contract was mainly made according to the Plaintiff’s decision and the funds raised by the Plaintiff was paid; ③ in fact, the changes of the new housing construction contract and the increased contract amount were made by the Plaintiff; ③ the Plaintiff appears to have led the sales contract of this case; ④ the Plaintiff failed to specifically disclose the details of the use of the construction cost in the form of the commercial building construction contract and the Plaintiff failed to specifically disclose the details of the use of the construction cost to club members; ⑤ The members paid the construction cost in installments in a way similar to that of the general housing sale contract and did not fully settle profits and losses after the completion of the house in this case.

Therefore, the new construction and sale of the housing in this case, as mentioned above, was carried out as the main intention of the plaintiff, and the following profit and loss is reverted to the plaintiff, and it is a proper method that the defendant issued a disposition to impose value-added tax on the plaintiff as the housing construction and sales businessman, so there is no reason to believe that it is a seafarer in another advance.

(2) Whether the purchase tax in the calculation of the value-added tax of this case is unlawful or not

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the amount of value-added tax payable by an entrepreneur shall be the amount obtained by deducting the input tax amount on the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business from the output tax amount on the goods or services supplied by him, and provides that the input tax amount before the issuance of the tax invoice is not entered in the tax invoice or the whole or part of the requisite entries are not entered, or the input tax amount is not

Therefore, as seen earlier, since the Plaintiff’s business registration was made ex officio on February 5, 2007 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to make a business registration during the process of newly building and selling the instant house, it cannot be deducted from the output tax amount of KRW 890,715,336 (the input tax amount on KRW 10,00 delivered by the Plaintiff and Kim Jong-young Co., Ltd.) for the newly constructed construction cost of the instant house, which occurred between September 30, 2003 and June 30, 2006, before the business registration was made, from the output tax amount. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit (In addition, even if the input tax amount under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act does not deduct from the output tax amount, it cannot be deemed as unfairly infringing on the taxpayer’s property right in light of the principle of substantial taxation or the equity and equity in tax interpretation and application of the tax law as alleged by the Plaintiff).

(3) Whether the assessment of the global income tax for 2006 was unlawful before the expiration of the filing deadline

According to Article 80 (3) of the Income Tax Act, the tax base and tax amount of global income tax shall, in principle, be determined by the method of a real investigation. However, in calculating the tax base, where necessary account books and documentary evidence do not exist or important parts are incomplete or false, the amount of income may be determined by the estimation investigation. Article 82 of the same Act provides that where the taxpayer is in a state of suspension or closure for a long time without any justifiable reason and without filing the tax return under Article 168 (3), the head of the competent tax office may impose the income

In this case, as seen earlier, since the sale in lots was made on February 13, 2006 for the remaining l household except for 13 households, the sale in lots was completed on or before December 30, 2005, among the housing in this case, income from the sale in lots by the above 1 household constitutes business income belonging to 2006, but it is reasonable to deem that there was a concern that the Plaintiff could evade income tax in the state of business suspension or closure for a long time without registration of business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Defendant constitutes an unlawful disposition in this case since it constitutes a ground for imposing income tax on business income belonging to the Plaintiff for the year 2006 pursuant to Article 82 of the Income Tax Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.