logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.03.31 2014누64669
부가가치세부과처분취소
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the order to revoke the following dispositions shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On the fourth parcel of the Seoul Jung-gu E, F, G, and H, there are two-story commercial buildings (hereinafter “instant commercial buildings”), and the instant commercial buildings E are jointly owned by Plaintiffs A, D, and F, Plaintiff C, D, and C, and C, and C, D, respectively. The registration of each building is separate.

B. As a result of conducting a tax investigation of value-added tax on the instant commercial building from September 10, 2012 to September 29, 2012, the Defendant: (a) confirmed that the Plaintiffs were underreporting the amount of revenue of the instant commercial building from February 10, 2007 to September 9, 2009, even though the Plaintiffs leased the instant commercial building from January 10, 2007 to January 10, 2009, the deposit amount of KRW 379,000,000, and the rent of KRW 11,350,000 per month; and (b) on November 10, 2012, the Plaintiffs issued a disposition imposing value-added tax (hereinafter “disposition disposition”).

The amount of tax (including additional tax) calculated on November 10, 2012.10, 2008.10, 13,538,570 won on November 10, 2012.10, 2008.10, 11,179,370 won on February 2, 2008. C B, 2007.10, 14, 995, 730 won on November 10, 2014, 730 won on November 14, 2012; 10, 14, 2008, 10, 14, 208, 10, 140, 208, 205, 30, 140, 208, 205, 304, 208, 205, 304, 205, 15, 2014

C. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection with the Defendant on February 4, 2013, but the Defendant dismissed it on March 18, 2013. The Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 5, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed it on November 21, 2013. The Plaintiffs appealed appealed and filed the instant lawsuit on February 13, 2014.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 18, 19, Eul evidence 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the commercial building of this case is located around December 2006.

arrow