Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Partnership-85453 ( October 27, 2017)

The instant officetel appears to have been converted for tax exemption, and it cannot be deemed that there are justifiable grounds for additional tax exemption exemption.

The disposition of imposition of the value-added tax on January 2012, 2012, considering that the instant officetel was deemed to have been used as a permanent residence by deeming it as the second lessee’s statement, is legitimate. Even if the third lessee used it for a taxable business from February 2014, the disposition of imposition of the value-added tax on January 2, 2012 does not affect the disposition of imposition of the value-added tax on February 2014, and only the Plaintiff is entitled

Article 6 [Supply of Goods] of the Value-Added Tax Act

2017Nu81573 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

EA and one other

CC director of the tax office

on October 16, 2018

on October 27, 2018

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

the Gu Office's place and place of action

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of KRW 00,00,000 (including additional tax) for the first term of September 22, 2015 against the plaintiffs on September 22, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this Court concerning this case are as follows, since the reasons for this Court are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the meaning of the language used in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter the same shall apply to the judgment of the first instance).

2. Parts used or added;

0,000,000 won of value-added tax for the first period of 2012 (including the general under-reported additional tax of KRW 0,000,000 and the additional tax for unfaithful payment of KRW 00,000)" of 4-7 of 4th 2012, "the witness" of 4th 11st place shall be read as "the witness of the first instance court", "this court" as "the witness of this court", "the 5th 21th and 6th 8th m" as "the witness of the first instance court", respectively.

The ○ 6th parallel 11 to 12th parallels shall be followed as follows:

[3] Determination

In light of the above, as seen above, it is reasonable to view that Dodddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd tax

Article 85 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act)

○○○ 12's last parallel is used as a witness of the first instance trial, and the first 13's last parallel is added to "one minute of 2012" after the second 2's "exclusive use", and the first 9's first 13's first 13's "3's lease agreement" is changed to "2's lease agreement prepared by the plaintiffs and DoD."

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims in this case are without merit, and they are dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and without merit, and all of the plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.