logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015. 09. 11. 선고 2014누71803 판결
사업활동으로 볼 수 있을 정도의 계속성과 반복성을 가지고 행하여진 주택신축판매업에서 얻은 소득은 사업소득으로 보아야 함[국승]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

District Court 2014Guhap7409

Title

Income earned from the Housing Construction and Sales Business Act with continuity and repetition to the extent that business activities can be seen as business income.

Summary

(As with the judgment of the court of first instance) If real estate transactions have been conducted as a whole with continuity and repetition under the business purpose, it constitutes a business operator's real estate transactions, and income accrued therefrom constitutes business income, and the exclusion period for imposition of ten years is ten years.

Related statutes

Article 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Cases

2014Nu71803. Revocation of imposition, including value-added tax

Plaintiff

IsaA

Defendant

00. Head of tax office

Conclusion of Pleadings

July 3, 2015

Imposition of Judgment

September 11, 2015

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. Each disposition of the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on July 16, 2013, including global income tax of KRW 000, global income tax of KRW 000, global income tax of KRW 000 for the second year of the same year and value-added tax of KRW 000 for the first year of 2006 shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of the following matters, and thus, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) On the fourth page, the following shall be added to "the fact reported and paid":

[In addition, the Plaintiff appears to use the phrase "a sales contract in the construction process of the building" in the sales contract for the first and second houses in order to conceal it even though it was transferred to the Plaintiff, and the expression "a newly constructed building" in the sales contract for the second houses (Article 22-1).

(2) On the 12th 10th 10, "the 2003th 2005 portion" means "the 2004th 2004, 2006 portion"

Ro-friendly.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow