early 208 Mine1210 (Occ. 23, 2009)

propriety of the disposition imposing a tax by deeming that the rental income amount was omitted

Any disposition that is imposed on the grounds that the amount of income was omitted on the basis of each store lease contract of a building obtained from a tax evasion reporter is justifiable.

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

1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the claim for the revocation of the notice of change in income amount of KRW 1,260,00 for the year 202, KRW 70,000 for the year 203, and KRW 262,00 for the year 205 shall be dismissed.

2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

3. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

[Attachment 2. Report on Change in Income Amount of Attached 2. Report on November 14, 2007 that the Defendant made to the Plaintiff on November 14, 2007 refers to the amount of value added tax, the amount of corporate tax, and the amount of previous calculation stated in Attached 3. Report on Change in Income Amount of Attached 2. Report on Change in Income Amount of Income [to the effect that the Plaintiff, instead of the notification of change in income amount, seeks revocation of the voluntary payment of income tax on the source (No. 2-1 through 5) based on the notification of change in income amount, it appears that the Plaintiff seeks revocation of the notification of change in income amount of income, which serves as the basis of the above earned income tax].

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. The Plaintiff is a rental business operator who leases a ground building 111-6 of ○○○○-dong 111-6 (hereinafter “instant building”) established on February 10, 200, and Korea is the representative director of the Plaintiff.

B. As a result of the consolidated investigation of corporate entrepreneurs conducted from July 2, 2007 to August 13, 2007 (hereinafter in this case's tax investigation), the Defendant included the Plaintiff's rental income of KRW 445,560,00 in total amount from 202 to 2006 as the supply value base for the business year from 2006 and added it to the gross amount of income on November 14, 2007, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction of KRW 74,909,792, corporate tax of KRW 52,934,322 (the initial correction notification of the details of the correction disposition in attached Form 2; hereinafter in this case's initial correction notification; hereinafter in this case's "the initial correction notification of the amount of income in this case") and disposed of the amount of income in this case's bonus from the representative of the company (including value-added tax, and 'the details of the change notification of income amount in attached Form 3.').

C. On November 28, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for a pre-assessment review (hereinafter referred to as “instant taxation review”) on the following grounds: “The amount of bonus disposition for the AAA, which accepted the above claim on December 27, 2007, was corrected as KRW 281,116,000,00 (hereinafter referred to as “the amount of bonus disposition for the AA, which was corrected as KRW 281,116,00,000, from among the income amount of the initial notice of change in the income amount in this case.”

D. However, on February 4, 2008, the plaintiff presented a separate custody of the defendant on the following grounds: (a) the plaintiff raised an objection against the initial corrective disposition of this case and the notice of change in the amount of income (hereinafter referred to as "the objection of this case") on the ground that the plaintiff did not reflect the change in the contract because of the change in the situation at the time of concluding the lease contract," and (b) the plaintiff did not clearly indicate whether the plaintiff raised an objection against the original corrective disposition of this case and the notice of change in the amount of income (the objection of this case is not clearly revealed, but the objection of this case is also filed in light of the overall purport of the reasons for the objection. However, the defendant partially accepted the plaintiff's assertion on March 20, 200, 12,600, 200, 2003, 200, 300, 200, 206, 206, 200, 206, 206, 200, 30, 206, 200.

E. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant corrective disposition and notice of change in the amount of income (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”), filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 4, 2008, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on March 23, 2009.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1,2,3,5,6,7 (including various numbers), Eul's 1 to 6, and Eul's 9 (including various numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the revocation claim regarding the reduction of value-added tax in addition to the instant lawsuit is legitimate

ex officio, the claim for cancellation against the notice of change in the income amount of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the notice of change in value-added tax") falling under the attached Table 3. Report of change in the income amount of this case is legitimate.

In full view of the facts in dispute between the parties and the whole purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 14, and 15 (including various numbers), the defendant reduced the plaintiff's omission of the lease income by the plaintiff's application of this case after the notice of change in the original income amount of this case. Accordingly, the defendant reduced the amount of the plaintiff's omission of the lease income by the amount stated in the "amount of reduction in the plaintiff's objection" other than the value-added tax while reducing the bonus disposal amount of HanA as a bonus disposal amount, and reduced only the amount of the above "amount of reduction in the plaintiff's application" as stated in the plaintiff's claim. However, the defendant further reduced the amount of bonus disposal in the above attached Form No. 3, the amount of value-added tax equivalent to the "amount of reduction in the objection" in accordance with the plaintiff's claim during the lawsuit

According to the above facts, the plaintiff's legal interest seeking revocation has ceased to exist due to the defendant's additional bonus disposal amount reduction, since the plaintiff already achieved the purpose of the claim for revocation, the claim for revocation of the additional value-added tax reduction in the lawsuit in this case is unlawful.

3. Whether each of the dispositions in this case (referring only to the remaining dispositions excluding the notice of change in the amount of income in this case corresponding to the reduction in the addition of value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) is legitimate

A. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 1. The entry in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as follows.

(b) Whether the return on rental income is omitted or omitted;

(i)whether or not to believe a lease contract;

(a)The parties' arguments and the issues of this case;

The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff calculated an omitted rental income based on the lease agreement (No. 12-1 to No. 21-2, hereinafter referred to as "the defendant's possession lease agreement") on each store of the building of this case (hereinafter referred to as "each store of this case") which was obtained from the tax evasion reporter while conducting the tax investigation of this case, it was lawful since the plaintiff calculated the omitted rental income, and each disposition of this case was made based on this.

On the other hand, while presenting the plaintiff's possession lease agreement different from that of the contract for lease in possession of the defendant, the plaintiff argued that each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful, since the contract for lease in possession of the defendant did not reflect the renewal and modification of the contract (the details are as follows: ‘security deposit', ‘monthly rent', ‘the details of the report', ‘the details of the report' in attached Form 4.), on the ground that the plaintiff did not reflect the contents of the contract for lease in possession of the defendant, which is caused by the in-depth competition between the commercial buildings in the ○○○ District where the building of this case is located, the aggravation of the tenant's financial standing, and the characteristics of the lease business that

In this case, both parties do not dispute whether the authenticity of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s possession lease agreement is established, and therefore, we examine what kind of contract conforms to the facts among the two lease agreements applied in the same taxable period.

(b)a recognition;

① On November 17, 2000, the Plaintiff leased each of the instant stores to the lessee, while making a registration of initial ownership on November 17, 2000, and the details of each of the lease agreements from January 2002 to December 2006 are as stated in the attached Table 4. Lease Status (Reference Documents attached to No. 12-1 to 21).

(2) Before the tax investigation of this case, the difference between the monthly rent of each of the stores of this case reported by the Plaintiff and the monthly rent in the contract for the possession of the Defendant is as follows:

③ In the case of u300 reading room for the instant building 502, u300 reading room (in the instant tax investigation, CC, which seems to have reported the omission of the Plaintiff’s rental income from April 8, 2002), the Plaintiff reported monthly rent from January 2002 to September 2005 (No. 19,20 of No. 12 of No. 12 of No. 12 of No. 20) as stated in the current status of lease from April 8, 2002, but reported monthly rent of the same amount as the Defendant’s possession lease contract from October 2005. On January 10, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a revised value-added tax return and revised the rent to the same amount as the Defendant’s lease contract from January 10, 2006.

(4) On the other hand, from around 2005, the above Seocho operated a real estate brokerage office adjacent to the building of this case from around 2005, and the defendant's possession lease contract which was kept at the brokerage office of this case was submitted as information to the defendant.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap's 5,7 evidence, Eul's 11,12,13 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

(c)judgments

According to the above facts, the following circumstances are revealed.

(1) Lease deposit or monthly rent reported by a rental business operator is connected to the increase or decrease of the value-added tax amount and corporate tax amount of a lessee who is a corporate entrepreneur. Generally, since there are many institutional devices to verify the tax evasion compared to a small-scale individual entrepreneur with respect to a corporate entrepreneur, it is practically difficult for a lessee who is a corporate entrepreneur to report the amount lower than the actual lease deposit or monthly rent and to omit the lease income. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the credibility of the reported amount of lease income is much higher than that of a corporate entrepreneur in cases where a lessee is a

In light of this case, in most cases of a tenant who is an individual entrepreneur as well as the period subject to the tax investigation of this case, the Plaintiff reported a monthly rent which is lower than the monthly rent stipulated in the Defendant’s possession lease agreement (in particular, even before the alteration of the contents of the lease agreement, even before 2002, even before the alteration of the contents of the lease agreement, the Plaintiff reported the actual monthly rent that is less than 1/4). On the other hand, in the case of a tenant who is a corporate entrepreneur, the Plaintiff reported accurately according to the deposit or monthly rent under the Defendant’s possession lease agreement.

(2) In addition, when CC had operated the above real estate brokerage business, it seems that it had received a kind of pressure such as tax evasion report from CC holding the lease contract, which is the basis of the lease income, and it is a factor to raise credibility of the reported amount of rental income in u300 reading rooms.

(3) In light of the above items (1) and (2) above, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff had to reduce monthly rent due to various inevitable factors is very persuasive, and in order to support this, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to recognize the above argument as being considered in the review items by each shop of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

④ The Plaintiff filed the instant objection on the basis of the Plaintiff’s possession lease agreement, which was not submitted at the time of the instant tax investigation, only after the Plaintiff did not submit it on February 4, 2008, from August 13, 2007, when the instant tax investigation was completed.

(5) On the other hand, the bonus disposal amount in the year 2005 and 2006 and the bonus disposal amount in the year 2005 and 2006 were reduced by the plaintiff's objection, and accordingly, if the amount claimed by the plaintiff is reduced from the rent income omission amount, the above bonus disposal amount in the year 2005 and 206 would be less than zero in the case of the year 2005 and 206, unless there are special circumstances that make it difficult to think that the plaintiff reported and paid more amount than the actual rent income, this would be contrary to the plaintiff's assertion in the taxation ledger and objection.

In light of the above various circumstances, it is reasonable to see that it is difficult to believe the content of the Plaintiff’s possession lease agreement as it is. Thus, each of the dispositions of this case on the premise that it remains in force even after the validity of the Defendant’s possession lease agreement can be recognized as legitimate, and in order to do so, other circumstances should be recognized to confirm the contents of the Plaintiff’s possession lease agreement (it is necessary to prove that the contents of the contract have changed ex post facto due to evidence law).

Then, we examine whether each of the stores of this case can be recognized as such.

(2)each of the stores in this case.

Among each of the stores in this case, the plaintiff's assertion of the omission of the rental income shall be deemed to be the store.

(a)○ Animal Hospital (101, DooDD)

If the purport of the whole argument is added to the statement in the evidence No. 10-8 to No. 14 of Eul, and No. 12-3 of Eul evidence No. 12-3, it is recognized that in the defendant possession lease contract for the above store, KimE, who concluded the lease contract with the plaintiff prior to the above store, entered into the lease contract with the above store at KRW 30 million and KRW 1350,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the monthly rent for the pertinent taxable period of the above store was KRW 1350,000,000 as stated in the defendant possession lease contract (Evidence 12-2). As seen earlier, the plaintiff's possession lease contract (Evidence 15) contrary to the above contents is likely to trust it as it is. Each of the items of evidence 17-2 and evidence 10-2 of evidence 17-2 and evidence 10-16 of evidence 10 is different from the Kim E-E, and it is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion that the contract was different in the course of entering into a new contract with the S-E, or that the monthly rent was lowered on the condition that the deposit was raised during the contract period, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(b) Parisbrate (102, lessee 0G);

According to the above facts, even before the period subject to the tax investigation of this case, the plaintiff's possession lease contract (Evidence No. 17) against the above store is likely to believe that it is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion that the monthly rent has to be drastically lowered from 1.4 million to 6 million won due to the aggravation of the financial resources of 00 million won in November 2001, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the monthly rent of the above store in the pertinent taxable period is KRW 1.4 million as stated in the defendant's possession lease contract (Evidence No. 12-14).

(c) Parisbrate (102, lessee Hah)

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s monthly rent is KRW 1.4 million in the Defendant’s possession lease agreement (No. 12-14 of the evidence No. 12) entered into with 0G, a lessee of HaH’s relocation.

In this regard, the plaintiff asserted that he received monthly rent of KRW 600,000 as in the case of 0GG from February 2006 to KRW 2,00,000,000 each month according to the terms of the special agreement on the plaintiff's possession lease contract (No. 18,000 won each month from February 2, 2006 to KRW 2,00,000,000 each month, and that he received deposit (in addition to value added tax of KRW 1.67,80,00 and average management fee of KRW 417,80,08 each month, it shall be deposited in every month 2,177,808). However, even according to the statement of the Eul evidence No. 7, the amount deposited by H to the plaintiff is insufficient to confirm the above special agreement, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. As seen earlier, the plaintiff is not a monthly rent of KRW 600,000,00,000 each month.

(d)○○BYC (104, lessee JJ)

However, the Plaintiff already reduced the rent income and reported it to the above store even before the period subject to the instant tax investigation is as seen earlier, and the Plaintiff does not dispute that the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on monthly rent of KRW 1,390,000 as the terms and conditions of the lease agreement concluded by the JJ with the Plaintiff.

According to the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the monthly rent for the pertinent taxable period of the above store is KRW 1,390,00 as stated in the defendant's possession lease contract (No. 12-15), and as seen earlier, it is difficult to believe that the plaintiff's possession lease contract (No. 16) contrary to the above contents is in trust, and the statement of No. 16-2 and No. 16-3 is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion that the monthly rent for the pertinent taxable period was reduced twice or more due to the above JJ's financial standing, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(e)Pene cosmetic (106, lessee UK)

However, as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the monthly rent for the pertinent taxable period of the said store is KRW 1.3 million as stated in the Defendant possession lease contract (No. 12-16 of the evidence No. 12), barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance.

The plaintiff's possession lease agreement (A evidence 19 No. 19-2) that goes against this is difficult to believe it as it is, and the statement of No. 7 alone is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion that the rent was reduced twice or monthly due to the aggravation of the situation of U.K.'s funds, but the rent was raised again on December 2005 at the time of the re-contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(f) △△△ PC existing (201, lessee, and lessee)

Since there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff set monthly rent of KRW 1 million at the time of the lease agreement with the SongM and the above store, it is reasonable to view that the monthly rent of the above store in the pertinent taxable period is KRW 1 million as stated in the Defendant-owned lease agreement (No. 12-10 of the No. 12).

Therefore, the plaintiff asserts that he agreed to pay monthly rent and management expenses for April 2005 and May 2005. However, in light of the statement of real estate rental price (No. 10-27) prepared and submitted by the plaintiff during the pertinent period, the statement of No. 12 in the statement of real estate rental price (No. 10-27) prepared and submitted by the plaintiff is difficult to believe it as it is and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above assertion

(g)Pafaf (203, lessee KimN)

However, as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the monthly rent of the above store is KRW 1610,00,000 as stated in the Defendant possession lease contract (No. 12-7) for the pertinent taxable period, barring any special circumstance.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s possession lease agreement (No. 20 No. 20-1) contrary to this is, as seen earlier, it is difficult to believe that the church listed in the evidence No. 20-2 of the Plaintiff’s 20-2 is not the above store, but the lease agreement with the above 202, and even according to the amount claimed by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s 20-2 and the evidence No. 7 are identical to the amount deposited by KimN. In light of the above, it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff decreased his rent twice or monthly due to the aggravation of the financial standing of KimN and the

(아)김QQ 한의원(301호, 임차인 김PP)

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff already reduced the rent income and reported it to the above store prior to the period subject to the instant tax investigation, and that the Plaintiff did not dispute the omission of the rent from the part of April 2004, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to view that the monthly rent in the pertinent taxable period of the above store is one million won as stated in the Defendant possession lease contract (No. 12-1).

The plaintiff's possession lease agreement (A No. 21) against this is difficult to believe that it is as mentioned above, and if the purport of the whole argument in the items of No. 10-21 through No. 28 is added, the plaintiff reported lease income with the purport that he was paid a monthly rent of 50,000 won from KimP from August 1, 2004 to December 2004. In light of this, each of the items of No. 13 and No. 17 in the evidence No. 13 and No. 7 alone stated in the evidence No. 13 and No. 500,000 won from August 2004 to December 2004, and the rent and management fee of May 1, 2005 were 60,000 won from January 2, 2005 to December 2005, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(자)☐☐ 보습학원(401호, 임차인 김RR)

However, it is reasonable to view that the monthly rent of the above store in the pertinent taxable period is KRW 2,50,00,000 as stated in the defendant possession lease contract (No. 12-12) unless there is any special reason to the contrary, if the purport of the entire argument is added to the facts of recognition as seen earlier.

The plaintiff's possession lease agreement (A No. 22) against this is difficult to believe it as it is, as seen earlier, and considering the overall purport of the pleading in the statement No. 10-8 of the evidence No. 10-10, the "Seoul Special Metropolitan City Do 501, which was the building of this case, transferred to December 1, 303, 2002 after receiving the paragraph of Kim RR due to noise problems. In light of this, it is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff exempted the plaintiff from the monthly rent of the above store due to the noise problem, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(j) △△△△(401, lessee KimS)

According to the statements in the evidence No. 23-1 and No. 12-17 of the evidence No. 23, it is recognized that there is a special clause stating that the object of lease not only the plaintiff's possession lease contract for the above store but also the defendant's possession lease contract shall be 500,000 won, but also the original monthly rent shall be 500,000 won, and the rent shall be 19,000 won and the rent shall be 200,000 won per month."

그러나 을 제10호증의 7 내지 22, 을 제12호증의 17의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 김SS 이전에 위 점포를 임차하여'☐☐ 보습학원'을 운영하였던 김RR의 임대차계약은 이 사건 건물 '4층 전체 약 150평'을 임대차보증금 1억 5,000만 원에 월 임대료 225만 원에 체결하였던 사실, 김SS가 2003.6.1.위 임대차계약을 승계한 후 같은 해 7.25.그 임대차보증금을 1억 원으로, 월 임대료를 50만 원으로 감액받은 사실, 원고는 2004년 1기 예정분(1월부터 3월까지)부동산임대공급가액명세서를 제출하면서부터 위 점포의 면적을 54평(명세서상 단위는 '㎡'이나 원고의 주장이나 다른 점포의 예를 들어 보더라도 실제 단위는 '평'을 의미한 것으로 보인다)으로 기재해 온 사실이 인정되고, 위 '☆☆태권도'학원이 2002.12.10.이 사건 건물 5층에서 3층으로 이전한 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같다.

According to the above facts, in a situation where the noise problem of the above store was resolved to some extent, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s considerable reduction of the lease deposit and monthly rent to KimS who succeeded to the above store’s lease contract was agreed upon by KimS to reduce the lease area from 150 to 54 square meters at the 154th 4th 5th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 500, and there is no other evidence to support the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above agreement was made only when it was entered on October 30, 204, and eventually, KimS paid KRW 50,000 per month to the Plaintiff until it was withdrawn from the above store

(k)Seoul Metropolitan City;

However, it is reasonable to view that the monthly rent of the above store in the pertinent taxable period is KRW 90,00,000 as stated in the defendant possession lease contract (No. 12-6) unless there is any special reason to the contrary, if the purport of the entire argument is added in the above facts of recognition.

이에 반하는 내용의 원고 소지 임대차계약서(갑 제24호증의 1)는 앞서 본 바와 같이 이를 그대로 믿기 어렵고, 을 제 10호증의 8의 기재와 갑 제24호증의 2의 일부 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 위 태권도 학원이 2002.10.경 소음문제로 인해 당시 이 사건 건물 4층을 사용하던 ☐☐ 보습학원 측의 항의를 받아 원고로부터 임대차계약 해지 의사를 통보받기까지 하였다 2002.12.10.이 사건 건물 3층으로 이전한 점을 알 수 있는데, 이에 비추어 보면 갑 제24호증의 2의 일부 기재만으로 위 소음문제로 인해 2002.1.분부터 2004.3.분까지의 월 임대료를 전액 면제받았다는 원고의 주장을 인정하기에 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

(l) △△ Kapet (601, lessee Kim TT)

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff already reduced the rent income and reported it to the above store prior to the period subject to the instant tax investigation, and that the Plaintiff did not dispute the fact that the Plaintiff had omitted the rent from the part of October 2002, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to view that the monthly rent in the pertinent taxable period of the above store is KRW 1.35,00,00 as stated in the Defendant possession lease contract (No. 12-1).

The plaintiff's possession lease agreement (A No. 25-1) contrary to this, it is difficult to believe it as it is, as seen earlier, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion that the financial standing of Kim Jong-name aggravated, and that the plaintiff also reduced monthly rent over two occasions, making it difficult to recognize that the plaintiff's assertion that the above monthly rent was reduced and the exemption was made.

(m)Indemy:

Therefore, it is reasonable for the Defendant to regard the monthly rent of each of the instant stores as shown in the World Survey column of Attached 4. Lease Status, and to calculate the omitted portion of the Plaintiff’s rent income as stated in the above-mentioned Attached Form.

(c) Determination on bonus disposition against Korea A;

(i)The plaintiff's assertion

Since Korea-A and the above KimB are separate sources of income, the omitted portion deposited in the account in the name of KimB in determining the person to whom the Plaintiff was found to have omitted return, shall be disposed of as the bonus of Korea-A, the representative of the Plaintiff, even though it is reasonable to dispose of only the omitted portion whose remaining attribution is unclear as the bonus of Korea-B. However, the Defendant presumed that Korea-B borrowed the account in the name of KimB and used it for the leased business, and then disposed of all omitted rental income as the bonus of Korea-B. Accordingly, the notice of change in the income amount of this case is unlawful.

(ii)judgments

살피건대, 당사자 사이에 다툼 없는 사실과 갑 제10호증, 을 제7,9호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면,①이 사건 각 점포의 임차인들이 원고에게 임대료 및 관리비를 지급함에 있어 원고 명의 법인통장에 입금을 할 뿐만 아니라 김BB 명의 통장에 입금하기도 하고 현금으로 직접 주기도 한 사실,②원고 명의 법인통장에는 주로 ▲▲증권 주식회사, 주식회사 ●●●븐과 같은 법인사업자들이 입금을 하였으나, 반면 김BB 명의 통장에는 대부분의 개인사업자가 입금을 한 사실,③김BB 명의 통장에서 임차인들의 임대보증금 및 월세 입・출금, 원고와의 입・출금, 한AA와의 입・출금, 회계사무소 기장료, 전화요금 등의 송금 내역 등이 확인되는 사실,④김BB 명의 통장에서 원고 명의 법인통장에 2004.4.14.부터 2006.11.6.까지 총 34회에 걸쳐 209,000,000원을 송금하였는데, 그 중 29회는 한AA 명의로 송금을 한 사실,⑤이 사건 과세적부심 결정문에는 "신고누락된 금액을 배우자 김BB 명의 통장으로 입금받거나, 현금으로 수령하여 한AA의 책임하에 관리한 것에 대하여는 청구법인 및 담당과 간에 다툼이 없다"고 기재되어 있고, 피고는 이러한 사정 등을 근거 삼아 위와 같이 원고 명의 법인통장에 송금된 209,000,000원을 원고 법인이 회수하여 업무에 사용한 것으로서 사외 유출로 볼 수 없다고 본 사실이 인정된다.

According to the above facts, it can be seen that Han has concluded a lease contract of each of the instant stores as the representative director, and actually managed the lease income. During this process, it ordinarily uses the passbook in the name of KimB, the spouse to evade some lease income, and accordingly, it is possible to transfer KRW 209,00,000 out of the lease income deposited in the passbook in the name of KimB to the corporate passbook in the name of the Plaintiff to the corporate passbook in the name of the Plaintiff and use it for the corporate business of the corporation. Thus, it is reasonable to dispose of the entire amount of the Plaintiff’s lease income omission as the bonus to Han as the total representative and Han (the entry of the evidence No. 28 alone is insufficient to reverse the above recognition and there is no other evidence to support that KimB used the money deposited in the passbook in its name for personal use).

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for revocation of the addition of value-added tax among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful, and thus, the remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.