Whether the tax base for real estate rental is appropriate

The deposit shall be calculated by the amount actually received between the parties to the contract.

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

1. The part that exceeds 603,293 won out of the value-added tax for the second term of 1990 for the Defendant against the Plaintiffs on April 1, 1993; 605,744 won out of the value-added tax for the first term of 1991 for 665,839 won; and 651,461 won out of the value-added tax for the second term of 1991 for 68,831 won out of the value-added tax for the second term of 1991 for 68,831 won is revoked. 2. 3. The remaining claims of the Plaintiffs are dismissed on March 1, 1993. 10 minutes of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendant, and the remainder are assessed against each of the Plaintiffs.

1. Details of the instant disposition;

Considering the whole purport of pleadings in the statement No. 1 to No. 5, No. 1 to No. 5, No. 2 and No. 5, No. 3-1 to No. 3-7, each of the above statements, the plaintiffs, as a result of the investigation into the contents of the lease contract, leased the three-story buildings on No. 1308-16, No. 1308, No. 1308, U.S. to the lessee in the attached Form No. 4, No. 1308, Dec. 1, 1994; 200,000,000 won from monthly rent; 30,000 won from monthly rent; 40,000 won from monthly rent; 30,000 won from the attached Table No. 4,00,000 won from the attached Table No. 1 to the other lessee; 30,000 won from the date of investigation into the contents of the lease contract.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

The Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the instant disposition should be revoked, as they were leased to KRW 200,000,000 without monthly rent as originally reported.

In full view of the arguments in evidence No. 7, No. 8, and No. 4, the plaintiffs concluded a lease contract with the above pension store on May 31, 1990 for the second floor store No. 600,000,000 won as part of the deposit without monthly rent for about 300,000 won and for the remaining KRW 300,000,000 as part of the deposit, the remaining amount of KRW 1.5% as of the deposit shall be paid monthly; however, the plaintiffs agreed to receive KRW 30,50,000 for the above 30,000,000 won as well as KRW 1.5% as to the above 30,000,000 as to the above 30,000,000 won as to the above 30,000,000 won as well as KRW No. 97,00,000 as to the above 30,000,00 won.

According to the above facts, the deposit money for the above pension deposit shall be KRW 300,00,000 which was actually received between the parties to the contract. Furthermore, the monthly rent shall be KRW 4,500,000 for each month of the above pension deposit by the end of August 1991 when the plaintiffs expressed their intent to collect KRW 4,50,000 for each month of the above pension deposit (for the content of the contract, KRW 4,500,000 for the amount to KRW 4,50,000 or KRW 1,50,000 for the amount to be exempted by the plaintiffs, and its portion shall be deemed to fall under the free supply of the service) and thereafter at KRW 4,50,000. (Although the plaintiffs asserted that the monthly payment was not actually made for a considerable period of time, this disposition does not interfere with the above disposition).

Therefore, the disposition of imposition for the first and second period of 192 imposed by the defendant by recognizing the deposit money for a pension store as 300,000,000 won is lawful. However, the disposition of imposition for the second period of 190, which was imposed by recognizing the deposit money as 400,000 won until August 31, 1991, and the first and second period of 1991 is unlawful. Thus, the deposit money is deemed as 30,00,000 won, and the tax base for the corresponding period is calculated as 34,92,463 won, 35,306, 574 won for the first period of 1991, 400 won for the second period of 197, 97, 1965 won for the second period of 197, 1965 won for the second period of 196, 305 won for the second period of 196, 196, and 196, 1965 won for the tax amount for the second period of 2.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of imposition of the second half of 192 among the dispositions of this case shall be lawful. However, the part exceeding 603,293 won out of the second half of 190 - 713,595 won, 66,744 won out of the first half of 1991 - 665,839 won, 656,744 won out of the second half of 1991 - 68,831 won out of the second half of 1991 - 651,461 won out of the amount of 68,831 won out of the amount of 191 - shall not be exempted from revocation as it is unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of claims shall be dismissed as without merit.

February 9, 1994