Cho Jae-chul201 Jeon 1142 (Law No. 111, 08.09)

(1) In return for the transfer of all business rights and business facilities, it shall be applicable to other income.

Although it constitutes other income in return for the transfer of all business rights and the business facilities, the initial disposition which deemed business income as the usage fee for the facilities, etc. is unlawful.

2011Revocation of revocation of the imposition of global income tax, etc.

KimA

Daejeon Director of the District Tax Office and one other

November 21, 2012

January 23, 2013

1. On September 1, 2010, the head of the Daejeon District Tax Office imposed global income tax of 000 won for the Plaintiff in 2007, global income tax of 000 won for the year 2008, global income tax of 000 won for the year 2009, and global income tax of 000 won for the year 2009 for the Plaintiff on September 10, 2010, the head of the Daejeon District Tax Office imposed the imposition of the first value-added tax of 1, 2007 for the Plaintiff on September 10, 2010, the second value-added tax of 00 for the year 2007, and the second value-added tax of 00 for the year 2008, and the second value-added tax of 00 for the year 2009.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From May 1, 2002, the Plaintiff, as a personal entrepreneur operating a real estate rental business in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) from July 13, 2005 to December 26, 2006, operated the “OO-O-use site (hereinafter referred to as the “instant place of business”) on the 00th floor of the instant building.

B. On December 13, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with KimD and three others (hereinafter “GlaD, etc.”) to lease the instant workplace with the following content.

(Omission of Conclusion)

C. The Plaintiff received respectively KRW 00 on December 13, 2006, the date when the lease contract was concluded from KimD, etc., and KRW 00 on March 30, 2007, and KRW 000 on October 30, 2007.

D. On July 1, 2010 through July 20, 2010, the director of the Daejeon District Tax Office notified the head of the Daejeon Tax Office and the Daejeon Tax Office of taxation data that the Plaintiff omitted from filing a return on the amount of KRW 000 each year while the Plaintiff was in use for ten years, such as facilities and equipment, and accordingly, on September 1, 2010, the head of the Daejeon Tax Office imposed on the Plaintiff the global income tax amount of KRW 000 for 200, global income tax amount of KRW 00 for 2008, and KRW 00 for 200 for 200 for 200 years and KRW 10 for 200 for 200 for 200 for the Plaintiff, and the director of the Daejeon Tax Office imposed on September 10, 2010 for 20 for 200 for 20 years and KRW 10 for 200 for 200 for 208 for 20 years.

E. The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and tried to the Tax Tribunal, but all of the appeals were dismissed on August 9, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-speed facts, Gap 1, 2, and 6, and 9 (in the case of household number, the number included, and this hereinafter the same), Eul 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendants' disposition of this case should be revoked in an unlawful manner, provided that 000 won (hereinafter referred to as "the money of this case") paid to the plaintiff by KimD et al. constitutes other income in return for the transfer of business rights, and that the above amount constitutes business income as usage fees for the house, etc., although it constitutes other income in return for the transfer of business rights.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

It is difficult to say that the plaintiff's 6th floor of the building and the other party's 6th floor of the building and the other party's 6th floor of the building and the other party's 6th floor of the building and the other party's 6th floor of the building were 0th floor of the building and the other party's 6th floor of the building and the other party's 6th floor of the building were 0th floor of the building and the other party's 6th floor of the building and the other party's 6th floor of the building were 0th floor of the building and the other party's 6th floor of the building were 0th floor of the building and the other party's 6th floor of the building were 0th floor of the building and the other party's 6th floor of the building were 0th floor of the building and the other party's 0th floor of the building and the other party's 0th floor of the building are 0th floor of the building.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.