beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, under the trade name of “B,” carried out a new construction project of the main apartment complex with the 3rd underground floor above the 15th underground floor in Seoul Northern-gu, Seoul, and the main apartment complex with the 15th underground floor (hereinafter “instant project”).
B. In the course of implementing the instant business, the Plaintiff reported the value of supply at KRW 6,972,547,00 in the amount of KRW 6,00,000 for the second period of 206, but did not report the global income tax for 2006.
C. On February 9, 2009, the Defendant: (a) on October 6, 2010, on the Plaintiff’s sales revenue attributed to 2006 KRW 6,972,547,00; (b) on February 9, 2009, on the Plaintiff’s global income tax amounting to KRW 447,920,972 (including additional tax) for the year 2006; (c) on October 6, 2010, upon applying the standard expense rate, notified the Plaintiff of the reduction of the total income tax reverted to 330,856,03 won (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), which was imposed on February 9, 2009, after the reduction was corrected, D.
The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition on August 11, 2010, but the court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim under the Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap32365 on November 25, 2011.
The Plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the first instance court. The appellate court rendered a final appeal on June 21, 2013, stating that “The justifiable amount of tax is KRW 148,039,387, and KRW 29,607,877, and KRW 204,916,119, in total, KRW 204,916,119, and KRW 27,268,855, and KRW 204,916, and KRW 2065,” the appellate court rendered a judgment that “The first instance judgment is to revoke the portion exceeding KRW 204,916,119, and KRW 206,” and the appellate court rejected the Defendant’s final appeal as the Supreme Court Decision 2013Du13831, Dec. 26, 2013.” (hereinafter “instant related judgment”).
recognized.