early 2009 Heavy0217 ( October 13, 2009)

Vehicle rent of a driving school shall be recognized as deductible expenses only for the expenses corresponding to the amount of income.

Since it is confirmed that the vehicle was transported for the students of the private teaching institute in the vicinity of the vehicle leased, it is reasonable to determine the amount of the vehicle in proportion to the total amount of revenue of the two institutes.

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’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 48,139,070 on July 1, 2008 against the Plaintiff on July 1, 2008 and the imposition of KRW 112,612,550 on global income tax of KRW 2004 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Value-added tax portion

1) From July 20, 2002, the Plaintiff purchased Nos. 601, 602, and 603 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) among the six floors of the instant building on July 2002, the Plaintiff registered the business as a real estate leasing business and applied for an early refund of value-added tax on the amount equivalent to the input tax amount of the said building from the Defendant on September 9, 2004, by filing an application for a refund of value-added tax on the amount equivalent to the input tax amount of the said building with purchase tax invoices attached to the purchase tax invoices related to the acquisition of the said building.

2) Even after acquiring the building portion of this case, the Plaintiff continued to use it in the operation of its private teaching institute, which is a tax-free business, and closed on January 31, 2005, and registered its business on February 1, 2005 under the name ofCCD (hereinafter referred to as “non-party D”) and converted it into a corporate entrepreneur.

3) Accordingly, on July 1, 2008, the Defendant imposed value-added tax amounting to KRW 48,139,070 for the second half of 2004 on the ground that the instant building portion is not provided for a taxable business (real estate leasing business) but provided for a tax-free business (private teaching institute) (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing value-added tax”).

B. Global income tax portion

1) As a result of examining the omission, etc. of the amount of income accrued in the year 2004 of the instant driving school, the Defendant confirmed that KRW 486,609,000, such as tuition fees, was omitted.

2) Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that, inasmuch as the amount of KRW 370,109,177 was omitted in total, including the rent of KRW 220,250,00,00 as the necessary expenses corresponding to the amount of the said omitted report, it would be deemed as the necessary expenses.

3) However, the Defendant recognized only KRW 287,372,177 out of the necessary expenses claimed by the Plaintiff as necessary expenses, on the ground that the vehicle leased by the Plaintiff was used in transporting the students of the BBH (hereinafter referred to as the “BBH”) nearby the instant private teaching institute, on the ground that the said vehicle rent portion cannot be deemed as the expense corresponding to the total amount of revenue of the two private teaching institutes, and imposed KRW 112,612,550, total income tax on July 1, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition of global income tax”), and that the said vehicle rent portion cannot be deemed as the expense corresponding to the amount corresponding to the revenue of the instant private teaching institute, and imposed KRW 12,612,550, total income tax on July 1, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1-1, 2-2, 2-1 through 5, 3, 4-1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff converted the instant private teaching institute into a corporation and registered the real estate rental business for the purpose of leasing the instant building portion to the corporation, and in fact leased it to the non-party company established by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition imposing the value-added tax on the said building portion was unlawful.

B. Although the Plaintiff used the school bus of a private teaching institute that was leased by the Plaintiff along with a same-sex and a neighboring private teaching institute operated by KimA, an elementary school. However, due to the relationship with the above KimA, it is merely a provision for the convenience of temporary use in a state without any increase or change of the route, and it does not result in an increase in the vehicle or a new cost. Thus, the corresponding portion of a neighboring private teaching institute, calculated in proportion to the total amount of revenue of the two private teaching institutes among the instant car rent portion, is deemed not a cost corresponding to the amount of revenue of the private teaching institute of this case, and thus, the imposition of global income tax of this case is unlawful.

3. Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

A. Value-added tax portion

In full view of the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Articles 17(1) and (2), and 24 of the Value-Added Tax Act, in order for an entrepreneur who has acquired a building to receive the refund of the input tax pursuant to Article 24(2)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, the building should be offered or planned to be offered to a taxable business, such as leasing business, etc. If it is offered or scheduled to be offered for a tax-free business, no value-added tax shall be refunded pursuant to the above provision, and as long as it is offered to a taxable business after the acquisition, it cannot be said that

However, the plaintiff purchased the building portion of this case on July 9, 2004 and used it for the private teaching institute business of this case operated by himself, and discontinued the private teaching institute business on January 31, 2005 and registered the business for the private teaching institute business under the name of the non-party corporation. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the building portion of this case was provided for the private teaching institute business under the name of the non-party corporation and provided for the rental business after February 2, 2005 when the taxable period of 271 expires.

Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the said part of the building was provided as a tax-free business cannot be deemed to be incompetuous error.

B. Global income tax portion

According to the provisions of related Acts and subordinate statutes such as Articles 27 and 33 of the Income Tax Act, the amount to be included in the necessary expenses in the calculation of the business income shall be generally accepted as expenses corresponding to the total amount of income in the corresponding year, and it shall not be included in the amount not directly related

However, according to the above evidence, the plaintiff leased the 6th to 8th of each month of 2004 and transported the 6th of each month as well as the students of the 6th of the 6th of each month of the 2004 driving school; the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 2004 driving school; the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 2004 driving school used to transport the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 2004 school; the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 2004 school; the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 196th of the 6th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3rd of the 1st of the 2.

In addition, in light of the size of the students of a nearby driving school as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the cost for transporting the students of a driving school increased as much as the costs incurred by the students of a driving school using the leased vehicle by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no increase in the cost is also rejected.

Therefore, it cannot be said that there was an unson’s fault in the disposition imposing global income tax in this case, deeming that the corresponding portion of a neighboring entrance training institute does not constitute necessary expenses.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation of each disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.