The criteria for judgment as to whether the supplier of the service falls under the case of an unfair low price under Article 13(1)3 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Articles 50(1) and 52(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

In the case of a land lease, the proper rate of rent for the land, which is the tax base for determining whether the supply of the service is an unreasonably low price or not, shall be based on the price formed in the normal transaction with the supplier and the unrelated parties, but in the absence of such price, it shall be determined based on the transaction practices of the persons who are engaged in the same trade, whose entry is just and reported, and who do not receive a disposition of correction in good faith, among the persons engaged in the same trade, and in the absence of such rent practices in neighboring areas, by taking into account the land category, location, surrounding environment, utilization, reasonable transaction

Articles 13, 50, 52, and 69 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

Han-young et al.

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

1. The defendant's imposition disposition of value-added tax for 1986 on June 16, 1986 for the first period of 1981, 513,10 won for 2 years, 1981, 34,110 won for 1982, 273,390 won for 287,160 won for 1983, 1983, 194, 45, 197, 1984 for 2 years, 197, 1984, 198, 197, 1964 for 2 years, 198, 197, 196, 198, 197, 294 for 2 years, 1984, 196, 198, 196 for 2 years, 2 years, 198, 2 years, 1985, 198.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. In light of the following facts: (a) No. 1-14 of evidence No. 1; (b) No. 2-1 through No. 6 of evidence No. 3; (c) No. 4-1 through No. 10; (d) No. 5; (b) No. 6-1, No. 7-1, and No. 8; and (c) the purport of the pleading is to give testimony as witness No. 1; (b) Plaintiff Han Young-young is the representative director of the Gyeyang Industrial Development Co., Ltd.; and (c) Plaintiff Han-young owns 12.19% of the shares of the above Co. 14; and (d) Plaintiff Han-young owns 24.39% of the shares of the above Co. 1; and (e) Plaintiff Han-young is not liable for the rent of the above Co. 1 under the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act for the rent of the above Co. 1, 1981 to the above Co. 6.

2. The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant land rent, which they received from Nonparty Daeyang Industrial Development Co., Ltd., did not unfairly lower the tax burden but did not unfairly lower the tax burden, deeming that they received a lower price and omitted sales, and that the instant value-added tax was unlawful.

According to Article 13(1)3 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 50(1) and Article 52(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the tax base of value-added tax on the supply of services shall be the market price of services supplied by the supplier of the services in cases where the supplier of the services unfairly lower prices, and the unreasonably lower price means the price which is considerably lower than the market price which is deemed to unreasonably reduce the tax burden on the supply price of services in the transactions with a person with a special relationship with the business operator, and the market price of services means the price formed in the ordinary transactions with a person without a special relationship with the business operator. In addition, Article 69(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that Article 69(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the entry is justifiable by means of estimation and correction, and that the entry is made in good faith with another business partner who did not receive the disposition of correction, shall be determined based on the reasonable and reasonable price of land in the transaction with the Plaintiffs and its neighboring parties without a special relationship.

The Defendant’s computation of the corrected rent is based on the rent for the building of a non-party company in a special relationship with the Plaintiffs. However, in calculating the rent for the instant land leased by the Plaintiffs to the non-party company, the basis is the total rent for the lease of a building owned by the above non-party company on the instant land (in accordance with the Defendant’s calculation method, it is erroneous that the size, location, and situation of the leased building on the same land, or the annual rent for the building at 10,000 square meters is increased in proportion to the building’s calculation method) is not based on the rent for the land formed in a normal transaction between the Plaintiffs and the non-party company.

3. If so, the plaintiffs' claims seeking the revocation of each taxation of this case are justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Lee Jae-won (Presiding Judge)