beta
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. The plaintiff, B (the father of the plaintiff), C (the mother of the plaintiff), and D (the plaintiff's birth) own 100% of the shares issued by E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "E"), the representative director of which is the plaintiff (hereinafter "E"), (the plaintiff 3,906 shares, D2,418 shares, C, and B 1,488 shares out of total shares issued by 9,300 shares), and the plaintiff, B, and D own 100% of the shares issued by F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "F"), the representative director of which is the plaintiff, B, and D (the plaintiff and D 19,400 shares, B1,200 shares out of total shares issued by 50,00 shares).
Meanwhile, from June 2006, the Plaintiff had been running a lodging business with the trade name of Ansan-gu Mangel (hereinafter “GMoel”).
B. On April 9, 2012, the Plaintiff and D leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 850,000,000 (no rent) to the Plaintiff, D, and C, a joint proprietor of the business (30.1% of the Plaintiff’s equity, D’s equity 39.8%, C’s equity 30.1% of the Plaintiff’s equity, and C’s equity 30.1% on March 15, 2012, the lease deposit amount of KRW 70,000 (no rent) and the lease term of KRW 12 months (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the lease relationship of this case”) has been continuously maintained after the expiration of the lease term of the Plaintiff, D, and C’s joint proprietor of the business (30.1% of the Plaintiff’s equity, D’s equity 39.8%, and C’s equity 30.1% of the total size of land (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”).
From 2012 to 2015, the Plaintiff paid the comprehensive income tax by making the amount equivalent to its equity ratio among the deemed rent by multiplying the deposit interest rate by the fixed deposit interest rate, as the rental income included in the total amount of income pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Income Tax Act and Article 53(3)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.
C. From April 13, 2017 to May 2, 2017, the Defendant: (a) conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff; and (b) deemed that the Plaintiff leased the instant land to F and E in a special relationship with D, C, and joint business proprietor; and (c) accordingly, Article 41 of the Income Tax Act; and Article 89(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.