logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.10.06 2013구합16730
과세처분 취소
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. B, C, D, E, F, and G entered into the instant sales contract with the SimcoM Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with respect to the Iablele 406 on the ground of ShiscoM (H and two parcels).

B. On November 22, 2006, the above two and five business operators registered a business with the name of “J”, the type of business as “real estate leasing business”, and the type of joint business operators as “B et al.” by jointly leasing real estate that entered into a sales contract as seen above (hereinafter “instant business”).

C. From September 23, 2008 to October 13, 2008, D, E, F, and G withdraw from the instant project and only B and C were remaining joint operators of the instant project.

B, on January 25, 2009, as the representative of the instant business operator, reported to the Defendant KRW 325,736,00 as the value-added tax for the second term of 2008, but he did not pay KRW 273,371,50 within the due date.

E. Accordingly, on March 9, 2009, the Defendant designated C, a joint business proprietor of the instant business, as a joint and several tax obligor, and served a notice of tax payment of KRW 276,645,950 (including additional taxes) for the second period of value-added tax in 2008.

E. Since then, C is the actual entrepreneur of the instant business, and C is the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff merely entered into a sales contract under its name at the time of the instant sales contract and entered into a business registration, and the Defendant: (a) deemed the Plaintiff as the actual entrepreneur of the instant business through an investigation on the notice of payment of value-added tax; and (b) on January 3, 2013, the Plaintiff designated the Plaintiff as the joint obligor of the instant value-added tax on January 7, 2013, and issued a tax notice to the Plaintiff on January 7, 2013.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1 through 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful.

arrow