A. Whether an objection, as a result of notification of the content of investigation before taxation and notification of the attachment of property, predicted by the tax authority regarding the subsequent imposition, is deemed to have been raised through a request for examination and request for adjudgment as a result of dismissal after the tax authority’s disposition (affirmative)

(b) Criteria for determining whether the new acquisition or transfer of real estate constitutes a construction business which is a taxation requirement of business income tax and value-added tax;

(c) The case holding that the act of selling five new housing units during a period of about two years constitutes a business income tax and a construction business which is a requirement for taxation of value-added tax;

A. Where the Plaintiff received a notice of the content of investigation before taxation and the notification of the attachment of property from the Defendant prior to the disposition of imposing tax, and thereafter files an objection, and thereafter, the Defendant, who was subject to the disposition of imposition, determined the propriety of the disposition of imposition, and subsequently dismissed the said objection, filed a lawsuit via a request for examination and a request for adjudgment, the Plaintiff should be deemed to have filed an

B. Whether the new construction and transfer of real estate constitutes a requirement for taxation of business income tax and value-added tax shall be determined according to social norms by considering whether the new construction and transfer for profit purposes and the continuity and repetition of business activities are possible in light of the scale, frequency, mode, etc. of the new construction and transfer for business purposes.

C. The case holding that since the act of newly constructing five houses for about two years is all for profit, and it is sufficient to view them as business activities with continuity and repetition, and it is sufficient to view them as business activities, under the General Rules of the Income Tax Act, where two or more houses are sold within one taxable period under the Value-Added Tax Act, this alone does not constitute a ground for denying the feasibility of the first two transactions among the above series of transactions, and it does not constitute a construction business which is a requirement for taxation of business income tax and value-added tax.

(a) Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 5 and 66(b) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Article 20(1)8 of the Income Tax Act, Article 33(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, Article 2(1)(c) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 2(1)1-2 of the former General Rules of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1283, Feb. 1, 198)

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Nu254 delivered on September 9, 1986 (Gong1986, 1412), 8Nu11292 delivered on October 10, 1989 (Gong1989, 1692). Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1045 delivered on September 25, 1990 (Gong190, 2197) 90Nu6217 delivered on February 26, 1991 (Gong112)

Mannam

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu17220 delivered on October 24, 1990

Of the part against the defendant in the judgment below, the part of the disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax on February 1986 and January 1, 1987 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The remaining appeals by the defendant are dismissed, and all costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the defendant's defense of safety based on the judgment that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit of this case through a request for examination and a request for trial as to the rejection of the above objection after receiving the notification of the contents of investigation before taxation and the notification of the seizure of property from the defendant prior to the disposition of this case and predicted the disposition of this case, and then the defendant, who was subject to the disposition of this case, judged the propriety of the disposition of this case, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case. In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and judgment are just and there is no error of law as to whether it

2. We examine the grounds of appeal 2.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff sold five new houses during the period from February 26, 1986 to March 18, 198 by the evidence of the judgment, and revoked the disposition of imposition of value-added tax or global income tax on the five five transactions, on the ground that the general rule of the Income Tax Act (amended by February 1, 1988) is illegal, since it is difficult to see that there is business income tax or business feasibility under Article 20 (1) 8 of the Income Tax Act in light of the fact that the general rule of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1988, Feb. 1, 1988) is deemed to be a construction business in the case where one or more houses are

However, whether the new construction transfer of real estate constitutes a requirement for taxation of business income tax and value-added tax shall be determined according to social norms by considering whether the new construction transfer is for profit and whether it has continuity and repetition of business to the extent that it can be seen as business activity in light of its size, frequency and attitude. Even according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, it is sufficient to view all the new construction transfer of five houses of this case as a profit-making business with continuous and repeated business activity, and it is sufficient to view the new construction transfer of five houses of this case as a profit-making business with continuous and repeated business activity, and there is no circumstance to regard the first two new construction transfer of the above five new construction transfer separately from the third sale of the above three new construction transfer, and on the sole basis of the general rules of the Income Tax Act that the new construction transfer of real estate shall be viewed as a construction business in case where two or more houses are sold within a taxable

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below that revoked the imposition of value-added tax, etc. on the first and second transactions based on the absence of feasibility, cannot be maintained as there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the taxation requirements, and thus, the argument that points this out is reasonable (However, the decision of the court below that ordered the revocation cannot be exempted from the cancellation due to the illegality of the decision of estimated assessment as seen below.

3. We examine the grounds of appeal No. 3.

The court below recognized the fact that the defendant's account books and documentary evidence are incomplete and led to the decision of estimated assessment of global income tax, etc. of this case. The court below determined that the decision of estimated assessment of global income tax of this case was unlawful on the ground that the defendant did not prove the rationality and validity of the decision of estimated assessment, and that the account books and other documentary evidence were submitted during the lawsuit of this case. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is acceptable and it did not err in the rules of evidence selection such as the theory of lawsuit.

4. Therefore, among the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court below, the part revoking the disposition imposing value-added tax for the second term of 1986 and the first term of 1, 1987 shall be reversed and remanded, and the defendant's remaining appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party's assent, as per Disposition

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)