1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

A. On December 7, 2005, the Plaintiff was a rental business operator who owned a building with the size of 4248 underground and 4th above ground (the building in this case was destroyed or lost on March 19, 2013; hereinafter “instant building”) out of the manufacturing schedule in Busan Jung-gu and one parcel outside Busan, and leased to C the entire underground of the instant building, part of the first floor, and the second floor to C, with the lease deposit amount of KRW 120 million, monthly rent of KRW 9.5 million, the lease period of KRW 9.7 December 7, 2005 to December 31, 2011.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

As a result of the tax investigation against the Plaintiff, the Defendant issued a notice of correction of 10 value-added tax on June 5, 2014 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not receive any rent from the lessee regarding the instant lease agreement, on the ground that the tax base of the portion for which the value-added tax was not paid was omitted.

(hereinafter “each disposition of this case”). (c)

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 23, 2014, but was dismissed on October 14, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the purport and judgment of the whole pleadings

A. On July 6, 2006, the Plaintiff asserted that the lease contract of this case was terminated around June 30, 2007, as the Plaintiff did not pay two or more rents.

Even if not, the instant lease agreement was terminated on August 24, 2010 and November 27, 2010 by the Plaintiff.

In addition, the plaintiff suffered a big loss after deducting all the deposit for lease as the tenant did not pay the rent.

Therefore, after the termination of the lease contract, the lessee should be deemed to have illegally occupied the leased portion, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have provided the real estate lease service, on the premise that the Plaintiff provided the service to the lessee.