Seoul Administrative Court-2012 Guhap-38824 ( October 07, 2014)

In light of all circumstances surrounding the time when the relevant transfer was performed throughout the entire real estate held by the transferor, the purchase and sale of the Plaintiff’s land constitutes business income.

(1) Since it is reasonable to deem that land purchase and sale activities were conducted as part of continuous and repetitive business activities for the purpose of making profits as a whole from the perspective of the overall land sale and purchase activities, the disposition of imposition that deemed it as business income, other than capital gains, is justifiable.

Article 27 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Business Income)

Seoul High Court 2014Nu2944 Global Income and Revocation of Disposition

UCC

AA Head of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap38824 Decided February 7, 2014

o October 07, 2014

November 06, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The judgment that each disposition of imposition of global income tax **,857,720 (including additional tax), global income tax *,758,590 (including additional tax), global income tax 2004 *,758,590 (including additional tax), global income tax **,178,630 (including additional tax), and global income tax ***,796,130 (including additional tax) in 2006 **,796,130 (including additional tax) in 2007 *, global income tax *,058,730 (including additional tax) in 207

2. Purport of appeal

In the judgment of the court of the first instance, the part concerning global income tax in 2004 and global income tax in 2006 has been revoked, and the defendant's imposition of global income tax in 2004 **, 5590 won (including additional tax), global income tax in 2006 ****, 96 130 won (including additional tax) has been revoked.

1. Scope of the depth of the party deliberation;

The court of first instance dismissed all the Plaintiff’s claim. Since the Plaintiff appealed only on the global income tax in 2004 and global income tax in 2006 among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on global income tax in 2003, global income tax in 2005, and global income tax in 200 were excluded from the scope of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

"This court's explanation on this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment except for the case's determination on whether or not it is legitimate for the disposition of this case, and the part used in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is the same as the part of the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment."

(3) On the basis of the necessary deduction of interest on loans, a sales bonus by a real estate sales broker is not used in a company’s business, and is collectively referred to as assets held for sale or in the production process during a normal business activity.

It is merely classified as inventory assets (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu16950 delivered on July 25, 1997), real estate

(3) Where calculating global income tax on a trader is based on the global income tax method, the land and the building for the sale of each business operator shall not be affected by the fixed assets for the business, and Article 33 subparag. 10 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009) and Article 75 subparag. 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034 of Feb. 18, 2010) are excluded from calculating the interest rate on the loans required for the purchase or construction of the land, and the interest rate on the loans required for the above purchase or construction of the land shall be deducted from the sales price as necessary expenses (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du10724, Apr. 25, 2003). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above amount of interest on the loans, as alleged by the Plaintiff, is considerably different from the above 30th anniversary of the total amount of interest on the land, 5th or 6000 won, as necessary expenses.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is correct, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.