beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap8929
Case Number of the previous trial
Seocho 2012west 1021
Title
The plaintiff is the actual business operator who independently operates the place of massage treatment of this case, and the tax base is reasonable to be calculated based on the daily status table.
Summary
(As in the judgment of the court of first instance, it is the actual business operator who the Plaintiff independently operated the place of the instant massage procedure, and it is justifiable to determine the amount of revenue by the daily status table, and to calculate the tax base that reflects the initial return of the key business places
Related statutes
Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
Cases
2014Nu56026 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.
Plaintiff and appellant
AA
Defendant, Appellant
00 Other 1
Judgment of the first instance court
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap8929 decided June 24, 2014
Conclusion of Pleadings
December 10, 2014
Imposition of Judgment
January 14, 2015
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The decision of the first instance is revoked. The decision of the head of the tax office of 00 shall be revoked: (a) the global income tax of 2007, the global income tax of 2000, the global income tax of 2008, the global income tax of 2009, the global income tax of 2009, the global income tax of 2000, the global income tax of 2010, the global income tax of 2000, the global income tax of 2000, the first-year value-added tax of 2007, the second-year value-added tax of 2007, the second-year value-added tax of 100, the first-year value-added tax of 200, the second-year value-added tax of 200, the business income tax of 2009, the business income tax of 2000, the business income tax of 2000, the business income tax of 2000, the business income tax of 20000.
Reasons
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows: Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the dismissal of the following matters among the judgments of the court of first instance.
○ 6 The term “AA” in the column of the second column of the second column shall be deemed to read “AA”.
2. Conclusion
The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff are dismissed.