The legitimacy of the assertion that the monthly rent confirmed by the determination of the actual investigation is excessive

Each entry on the monthly rent for the amount claimed by the rental business operator is difficult to believe, and there is no other evidence to reverse the recognition, and the initial disposition is legitimate.

Article 13 (Tax Base of Value-Added Tax Act)

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s revocation of each disposition exceeding KRW 2,987,00 in total value-added tax on the Plaintiff from February 27, 2005 to January 2005, exceeding KRW 2,101,00 in total, and KRW 6,231,570 in total, of global income tax on the imposition of KRW 6,231,570 in 203 to December 5, 2005 and global income tax on the imposition of KRW 3,706,00 in total.

2. Purport of appeal

The portion of the judgment of the first instance court against the plaintiff shall be revoked. Each disposition of imposition of 849,440 won for the first instance court against the plaintiff on February 5, 2006 (2,987,010 won - 2,101,00 won - 36,570 won for the first instance court's revoked tax amount), 2003 and 2004, which were not revoked by the first instance court (6,231,570 won - 3,706,00 won for the first instance court's revoked tax amount of 2,489,560 won for the global income tax for the year 203 and 204 (6,231,570 won) - 3,706,000 won for the first instance court's revoked tax amount of 36,010 won for the first instance court's revoked tax amount) shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 19, 200, the Plaintiff is a personal entrepreneur who carries on a real estate rental business under the trade name of '○○○ Lease' from ○○○○-dong 437 building located in ○○-dong 437 (hereinafter referred to as "the instant building").

B. The Plaintiff: (a) a lease contract between September 30, 2001 and September 29, 2005 on the first floor of the instant building between September 30, 2001 and September 29, 2005; (b) a lease contract between Ma○○ and Ma○○ on the second floor of the instant building, between September 30, 2001 and October 30, 2004; (c) a lease contract between Ma○○ and Ma○ on the second floor of the instant building, between Ma○ and Ma○ on the basis that the lease contract between Ma○ and Ma○ on the second floor of the instant building was concluded on the basis of the value-added tax and the income tax, respectively, on the basis that the lease contract between Ma○ and Ma○ on October 31, 2004 to 30, October 30, 2007.

C. As a result of the tax investigation conducted on the Plaintiff, the Defendant determined that: (a) the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract between ○○○ and ○○○○, between the deposit of KRW 40 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.9 million, deposit of KRW 40 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.3 million, and KRW 40 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.4 million, and KRW 1.43 million between ○○○ and ○○○○; and (b) on February 5, 2006, the Defendant imposed the Plaintiff the value-added tax and the comprehensive income tax on the underpaid rental revenue as indicated in the following statement on the amount of income and the amount of income (hereinafter referred to as each of the instant dispositions).

Details of correction of the income amount and income amount (unit: Won)

Classification

Original Report

Correction of Investigations

Determination tax amount (including additional duties, tax credit for the term payment)

Tax Base

Tax amount already paid

Tax Base

Value-added tax for 2 years 2003

5,893,808

162,079

20,893,808

743,550

Value-added tax for 1 year 2004

5,870,818

176,124

20,870,820

72,550

Value-added tax for 2 years 2004

5,647,868

169,436

20,907,869

743,760

Value-added tax for 1 year 2005

5,628,164

168,844

21,408,164

727,150

Total Value-Added Tax

2,987,010

Global income tax for the year 2003

458,247

41,242

18,098,248

3,062,880

Global income tax for the year 2004

1,541,177

138,705

20,211,59

3,168,690

Total global income tax

6,231,570

D. The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions and filed an appeal on April 14, 2006, but was dismissed on September 14, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] The strife in dispute shall include facts, Eul evidence 1 to 6

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The lease contract between the former ○○○ is 700,000 won monthly from September 30, 2003 to June 30, 2005, and the lease contract between the latter ○○○○○ is 1.3 million won monthly from October 31, 2004 to June 30, 2005. Thus, each of the dispositions of this case on the basis of an excessive monthly rent is 2,101,00 won in total, and global income tax is unlawful within the scope exceeding 3,706,00 won in total.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 13 (Tax Base of Value-Added Tax Act)

(1) The tax base of value-added taxes on the supply of goods or services shall be the aggregate of the values in the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as "official fees"): Provided, That value-added taxes shall not be included:

1. Where payments are given in money, the payments;

2. Where payments other than money are given, the current market price of goods or services supplied by the supplier;

Article 49-2 (Special Cases concerning Calculation of Tax Base for Real Estate Lease Services)

(1) Where a business operator supplies real estate rental services and receives security deposits or deposits for lease, the tax base shall be the amount calculated by the following formula by deeming that he/she receives compensation other than money referred to in Article 13 (1) 2 of the Act and that he/she receives such deposits or deposits. In such cases, where a person who has fully borne the construction expenses for underground roads reverted to the State or a local government obtains permission to occupy and use an underground road (limited to the period of primary free occupancy

(The number of days of taxation period of the deposit or deposit for lease deposit) X (number of days of taxation period), X contract period of one year, and 365 = Tax base

Article 18 (Real Estate Rental Income)

(1) Real estate rental income shall be the following income generated in the relevant year:

1. Income accruing from a lease of any real estate or right to the real estate;

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) With respect to the part on the first floor of the instant building between ○○ and the former ○○, the Plaintiff: (a) entered into a double contract between September 30, 1999 and September 29, 199; (b) the lease contract between September 30, 199 to September 29; (c) the deposit amount of KRW 30 million; and (d) the monthly rent of KRW 1.8 million; and (e) entered into a lease contract between September 30, 201 and September 29, 2003 with the term of lease on September 30, 2001; and (e) entered into a lease contract between September 30, 2001 to September 29, 2003; and (e) entered into the lease contract between KRW 700,000 and KRW 700,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000.

(2) As to the second floor of the instant building, the Plaintiff reported that: (a) from September 30, 2001 to October 30, 2004, the term of lease from September 30, 2001 to October 30, 2004, the term of lease of KRW 40,000,000 for monthly rent of KRW 1,30,000 for monthly rent was not monthly rent even if it was actually paid; and (b) between October 20 and October 30, 204 to October 30, 2007, the Plaintiff reported that the term of lease was not monthly rent even if it was concluded between October 31, 204 and October 30, 207.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 13, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 5 (including value numbers), the witness of the first instance court, the witness of the first instance court, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

D. Determination

(1) According to the above facts, the monthly rent from January 1, 2003 to June 30, 2005 with respect to the part of the first floor of the instant building shall be KRW 1.9 million, and the monthly rent from January 1, 2003 to June 30, 2005 with respect to the part of the second floor shall be KRW 1.3 million. The monthly rent from January 1, 2003 to June 30, 2005 is KRW 70,000,000,000, which is paid from September 30, 2003 with respect to the part of the first floor of the instant building. Since it is difficult to believe that each of the items of subparagraphs 5 through 8 are stated in the above facts of recognition, there is no other evidence to reverse the above recognition, each of the dispositions imposing global income tax for the imposition of the tax of this case based on the above facts is lawful.

(2) However, among the dispositions of this case, each of the dispositions of this case was imposed on the basis that the monthly rent for the second floor of this case from October 31, 2004 to June 30, 2005 is KRW 1430,000,000, and each of the dispositions of this case was calculated on the basis that the monthly rent for the second floor of this case from October 31, 2004 to June 30, 2005. Thus, each of the dispositions of this case was calculated on the basis that the monthly rent exceeds KRW 130,00.

Furthermore, from October 31, 2004 to June 30, 2005, calculated based on the monthly rent of 1,300,000 won for the second floor of the instant building from October 31, 2004, the global income tax for 1, 2005 and the global income tax for 2004 are as follows:

Table of Calculation of Value-Added Tax Amount

Classification

Value-added tax for 2 years 2004

Sales Schedule

20,647,869 won [20,907,869 won - 260,000 won (130,000 won X 2]

Sales amount

619,436 won [20,647,869 Won X 30% (Additional Rate by Industry) X 10% (Tax Rates)];

Additional Tax

Additional Tax on negligent tax returns

45,000 won (450,000 X 10%)

Additional Dues

69,872 won (619,436 Won X 3/1000 X 376)

Total

14,872 won

Amount of final tax

734,308 won (619,436 won + 114,872 won)

Classification

Value-added tax for 1 year 2005

Sales Schedule

20,628,164 [21,408,164 - 780,000 won (130,000 won X6]

Sales amount

618,844 won [20,628,164 Won X 30% (Additional Rate by Industry) X 10% (Tax Rate by Industry)];

Additional Tax

Additional Tax on negligent tax returns

45,000 won (450,000 X 10%)

Additional Dues

36,202 won (618,844 Won X 3/1000 X 195)

Total

81,202 won

Amount of final tax

700,046 won (618,844 won + 81,202 won)

Additional tax on negligent tax returns: X 10% of the underreported calculated tax amount;

Additional tax: Number of days delayed X3/1000 of unpaid tax amount;

The global income tax calculation table of the global income tax for the year 204.

General

Revenue amount

Real estate business

41,518,689 won [41,778,689 won - 260,000 won (130,000 won X 2]

Transportation Business

12,892,00 won

Total

54,410,689 won

Amount of income;

Real estate business

25,617,031 won [41,518,689 X simple expense rate (1-38.3%)

Transportation Business

1,534,148 [12,892,00 X simple expense rate (1-8.1%)

Total

27,151,179 won

Tax Base

20,051,179 Won (27,151,179 - 7,100,000)

calculated tax amount

2,709,212

Additional Tax

Additional Tax on negligent tax returns

369,394 Won (1,846,973 X 20%)

Additional Dues

192,788 Won (2,570,507 X 3/1000 X 250)

Total

562,182 won

Total determined tax amount

3,271,394 won

Tax amount already paid

138,705 won

Correctioned Amount of Tax

3,132,689 won

Additional tax on negligent tax returns: X 20% of the underreported calculated tax amount;

Additional tax: Number of days delayed X3/1000 of unpaid tax amount;

Therefore, among the dispositions of this case, each disposition of this case exceeding 734,300 won out of 743,760 won of value-added tax for 2,2004 (the fraction less than 10 won under Article 47 (1) of the Management of the National Funds Act; hereinafter the same shall apply), the portion exceeding 700,040 won out of 727,150 won of value-added tax for 1,205, and the portion exceeding 3,168,690 won of global income tax for 204, and each disposition of imposition exceeding 3,132,680 won of global income tax for 204 should be revoked as it is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance that shares the conclusion is legitimate, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.