Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Guhap-5776 ( September 21, 2017)

Whether a person is subject to simple expense rate

The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have obtained income below the standard income amount under Article 143 (4) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act by leasing the instant office office to AA Person in 2012, and the Defendant’s disposition of this case by applying standard expense rate to the income amount in 2013 when the Plaintiff’s business was commenced in 2013.

Article 143 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Estimated Decision and Revision)

2017Nu76205 Global income and revocation of disposition

○ ○

00. Head of tax office

on January 26, 2011

on 02 09 October 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The Defendant’s global income tax for the year 2013 owed to the Plaintiff on May 4, 2016

23,668,390 won (including additional taxes) shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this judgment shall be with the exception of dismissal or addition of the following:

Inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main sentence of Article 420 of

this shall be cited as it is.

○ 7.9 on the 9th page, the following shall be added:

It is not easy for the Plaintiff to pay ○○ Holdings in advance for three months that it is the difference, if it is alleged that the business situation at the time of ○○ Holdings was not good. In addition, it is not easy for the Plaintiff to pay the difference in advance.

○○ Holdings did not pay a rent at all thereafter, even though the Plaintiff did not pay the rent.

There are no data to be deemed to have urged to do so)

○ 7, 18 pages 18, the following shall be added:

“The instant office between the Plaintiff and ○○ Holdings even in light of the same point as above.”

"It is difficult to deem that a lease contract is concluded and it is paid accordingly."

○ 8. The parts from 9 to 15 are as follows.

v. ○○ Holdings by means of household electric charges, telephone charges, urban gas charges, etc.

Even if it is possible to acknowledge the fact that the office of this case was actually used, the above circumstances, etc.

In light of the above, whether ○○ Holdings leased the instant office solely on the basis of such use

It is difficult to see that it is not recognized.

2. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be this.

As the conclusion is justified, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered per Disposition.

The decision shall be rendered as above.