logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.06.07 2017구합80240
종합소득세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 20, 2002, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on November 7, 1999, with respect to the Seocho-gu Seoul Building and 1911 (hereinafter “the instant building”).

B. On January 25, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on lease and management consignment (hereinafter “instant contract”) with C (hereinafter “C”) with respect to the instant heading room, under which C had the said heading’s authority to sublease and receive the subleases, and as a price for such authority, C had the right to receive the subleases and the right to receive the subleases.

C. C is a corporation with the purpose of accommodation business, real estate leasing business, etc., which provides hotel-type services in the concept of a combination between a hotel for usual lodging and a residential officetel to subleases.

Although the Plaintiff did not make business registration in relation to the instant contract, the Plaintiff did not pay the comprehensive income tax on the rent income. D.

The Defendant determined and notified the Plaintiff, on December 1, 2016, global income tax of KRW 5,719,110 (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), global income tax of KRW 3,610,960 for the year 2013, global income tax of KRW 4,757,250 for the year 2014, on the ground that the instant room was used for the service straws business pursuant to C that entered into the instant contract with the Plaintiff, and that the rent that the Plaintiff received from C constituted global income tax subject to global income tax.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On February 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on February 24, 2017, but was dismissed on June 2, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 7 and 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

arrow