1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Details of the disposition

On March 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs completed the business registration of the construction business of a residential building (30% of Plaintiff A’s shares, 20% of Plaintiff B’s shares, and 40% of Plaintiff C’s shares) and commenced an apartment house of eight households (hereinafter “instant apartment house”) on the D ground of Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, and conducted the business of selling it after obtaining approval for use on September 10, 2012 (hereinafter “instant business”).

Under the premise that the Plaintiffs sold the by-products of the former building in 2012, which was the taxable period immediately preceding 2013 where the sales revenue of the instant multi-family housing was generated, and obtained the amount below the amount prescribed in Article 143(4)2(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26982, Feb. 17, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Plaintiffs calculated the estimated income by filing a global income tax return for the amount of less than the amount prescribed in Article 143(4)2(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26982, Feb. 17, 2016

As a result of the income tax investigation on the plaintiffs, the head of Seoul Regional Tax Office deemed the "business commencement date" 2013 in which the actual amount of sales income accrued from the sale of the apartment house in this case, and the plaintiffs constitute a new business entity, not a business entity that has engaged in the existing business based on each relevant taxable period. Since the amount of revenue exceeds the standard amount under Articles 143(3)1 and 208(5)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the amount of income should be estimated by applying standard expense rate rather than simple expense rate, and the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have engaged in the construction business, and thus, the court notified the defendant to the effect that Article 7(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12173, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter the "former Restriction of Special Taxation Act")

Accordingly, it.