Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-7295 ( December 01, 2016)

Income 2015-0036 (No. 27, 2015)

Whether the rent shall be calculated in accordance with the income amount by deeming the rent as common expenses.

The rent on the whole 2 to 7th floor of the building of this case shall be the common expenses of the plaintiff's public notification source project and the house rental project, and shall be deducted from each income amount in proportion to the necessary expenses for each project. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion pointing

Article 160 of the Income Tax Act shall be kept and recorded.

Global Income Detailed and Revocation of Disposition

Is 00

00. Head of tax office

on October 07, 2017

on October 28, 2017

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

On February 9, 2015, the Defendant’s respective imposition dispositions on the Plaintiff on global income tax for the year 2008, the global income tax for the year 2009, the global income tax for the year 2010, the global income tax for the year 2010, and the global income tax for the year 201, shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the revision of the judgment of the court of first instance or addition of the judgment as follows. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

-2. 2. 7 Sheet 6

-2. 8 pages, with 7 floors used as a house;

-4. Hadden two pages with evidence Nos. 1, 45

- - - - - - - - - 10 10 - - -

-4 pages 13, after the 13th anniversary of the following, the plaintiff alleged that "(the plaintiff resided on 7th floor and provided meals to the residents of 2 to 6th floor, and the 7th floor was provided to the housing rental business, but the 7th floor was leased for the plaintiff's residence, and the above argument is not accepted).

-for the 4th-class rent, the rent for 2 to 6th-class rent;

-7.On the 7th parallel floor with the 6th parallel floor;

-7 pages 10-11, containing the same purport of pointing this out;

-7. 11. The following additions:

The defendant asserts that accurate calculation of necessary expenses and deduction should be made for each business division through the appraisal of the rent because the market price of the building of this case is unclear. However, it is reasonable to calculate necessary expenses by the method as seen above and it is not clear that the market price is. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

-7 No two of the following shall be charged: [The Defendant’s preliminary assertion that only the portion exceeding the amount of a legitimate tax should be revoked does not determine that there is no legitimate tax amount in the document submitted after the closing of argument. Moreover, a reasonable tax amount shall not be calculated until an accurate calculation of the seven-story rent excluded from the housing rental business (the method of dividing the area ratio is favorable to the Plaintiff, but the method of calculating the facility cost is not correct, considering the difference in the facility cost) is added

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.