Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap3101 ( November 13, 2009)

Income tax 2008-0139 ( October 31, 2008)

Whether the necessary expenses under the contract agreement corresponding to the omission of sales revenue actually paid

(As in the judgment of the court of first instance, the contract document submitted is a party to the contract, for which the identity of the party to the contract is unclear, and there is no objective evidence to prove the fact that the contract is actually executed, and it is reasonable to make an estimation by considering that there is no necessary account books and documentary evidence

209Nu40577 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing income tax

EAA

○ Head of tax office

Supreme Court Decision 2009Guhap3101 Decided November 13, 2009

November 9, 2010

January 18, 201

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke all the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 1,083,01,730 ( KRW 68,930,740 for the year 2002, KRW 263,723,060 for the year 2003, KRW 197,429,180 for the year 2004, KRW 343,387,010 for the year 2005, KRW 209,541,740 for the year 2006).

1. Quotation of judgments of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court's judgment is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to any addition or dismissal below.

"Other matters" in the fourth 7th 7th 7th of the judgment of the first instance court shall be read as "other matters and the description in the evidence 7-1 of the evidence 7," and "which is the ground for recognition in the fifth 7-8th ," and "each entry in the evidence 7-2" shall be added.

○ From the 11th to the 15th one of the 5th decisions of the first instance court are as follows:

(A) According to the above facts and evidence, the defendant considered the plaintiff's income on the housing construction and sales business as business income and confirmed the actual transaction amount of real estate sold in lots from 2002 to 2006 through documentary evidence, such as a sales contract, etc., according to the standard market price ratio, and calculated the total amount of income and the total amount of tax determined by the business year by deducting the value-added tax amount from the real transaction value of the building and land subject to value-added tax from the actual transaction value of the building and land and then adding it back again. Here, the plaintiff's disposition of this case was imposed based on the difference after deducting the amount of tax payable by the business year. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that

○ The following shall be added to the sixth fourth decision of the first instance court:

The plaintiff argues that the defendant is illegal since it did not comply with the calculation of estimated tax on all necessary places of business, even though some of the business places provide evidentiary materials, but the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to view that there is a business place where specific and objective evidentiary materials on necessary expenses are provided among the business places of the plaintiff. Thus, the above argument is without merit.

○ From the 6th bottom of the judgment of the first instance court to add the following judgments, and at the bottom to the 401th second to 3th, “The registration of preservation of ownership has been completed in the name of the plaintiff with respect to 401, and has been resided until now,” “The registration of preservation of ownership has been completed in the name of the plaintiff on April 18, 2003 with respect to 401, and a move-in with family members on July 14, 2006, have been living until now.”

The plaintiff asserts that the purchase price of part of the sale price which has not yet been paid shall be deducted from the amount of income because he/she has already renounced his/her claim or exempted his/her obligation. However, the statement in the evidence Nos. 83 through 85 (Additional No. 85) alone cannot be recognized that the plaintiff renounced his/her claim for the sale price or exempted his/her obligation, and there is no other evidence to support it. Thus, the above argument does not have any reason to further examine.

The following shall be added to the 7th sentence of the first instance court:

The plaintiff asserts that since ○○○○○○-dong 264-368, ○○○○-dong 264-368 among the real estate sold by himself, the registration of ownership transfer has been made to the seller on April 9, 2007, the sales revenue shall be deemed business income belonging to the year 2007, the defendant included it in business income belonging to the year 2006. However, according to the purport of the whole pleadings, the above 103 subparagraph 103 was sold in lots to YA and the registration of ownership transfer was made on January 20, 206, and on April 9, 2007, it can be known that the indication of the above registered titleholder was changed. Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

2. Consultations

The judgment of the court of first instance is just in that it has the same conclusion, and the appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed on the ground that the appeal by the plaintiff is groundless.