Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap10062 (Law No. 19, 2012)

Cho High Court Decision 201Do4767 ( December 26, 2011)

The plaintiff's act of preparing a double contract and receiving a separate rent through a separate account constitutes fraud or other unlawful act.

(As with the judgment of the court of first instance) The plaintiff's act of preparing a double contract and receiving a separate rent through a separate account constitutes a case where the plaintiff evades the rental income from the business establishment of this case by fraud or other unlawful act, and the exclusion period for imposition shall be 10 years.

Article 26-2 of the National Tax Basic Act

2012Nu24070 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

The AA

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap10062 Decided July 19, 2012

January 17, 2013

February 7, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The decision of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of 00 won for the first term of 2003, value-added tax of 000 won for the second term of 2003, value-added tax of 2003, value-added tax of 000 won for the second term of 2004, value-added tax of 000 for the second term of 2004, value-added tax of 00 for the second term of 2005, and value-added tax of 00 for the second term of 2005.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this court's ruling are as follows, and they are cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

O The third chapter of the fifth chapter "I seem to have been aware of it," added the following:

(A) The written evidence No. 3 was prepared in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, and as to the period from May 1, 2003 to April 30, 2004, which is the period of loan under the contract No. 1 of this case, the double contract was also prepared under the delegation of the plaintiff.

O Part 5, Paragraph 11, "The plaintiff's assertion above is without merit," adding the following information:

(원고는 이 사건 이중계약서가 2004. 5. 1. 이후의 기간에 대하여 작성되었으므 로， 위 기간에 대하여만 10년의 부과제척기간이 적용되어야 한다고 주장하나，앞서 본 바와 같이 2003. 5. 1.부터 2004. 4. 30.까지의 기간에 대하여도 이중 계약서가 작성된 것으로 보일 뿐만 아니라 원고가 위 기간 동안 김QQ 명의의 계좌로 입금된 차임을 제외하고 자기 명의의 계좌로 입금된 차임만을 임대수입 금액으로 신고한 점 등에 비추어 보면， 원고는 위 기간에 대하여도 사기 그 밖의 부정한 행위로써 이 사건 사업장의 임대수입금액을 포탈하였다고 봄이 상당 하고， 따라서 위 기간에 대한 부가가치세 역시 10년의 부과제척기간이 적용된 다고 할 것이므로， 원고의 위 주장도 이유 없다).

2. Conclusion

If so, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.