카츄샤로 군복무중인 임대건물관리인에게 지급하였다는 급여를 부인함은 적법함

카츄샤로 군복무중인 임대건물관리인에게 근로를 제공하게하고 급여를 지급하였다는 주장에 대한 입증책임은 원고에게 있다고 봄이 상당하고, 피고가 들고 있는 여러 정황에 의하면 원고의 주장을 인정하기 어렵움

Article 27 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 1,593,050 as of May 22, 2006, and global income tax of KRW 34,154,060 as of September 2006, and global income tax of KRW 19,537,630 as of September 206, shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), Eul evidence 1 to 14 (including each number):

A. From April 1, 1999 to ○○○○-dong 71-1 and ○○○○-gun 707-2, the Plaintiff, while carrying on real estate leasing business, entered the account book in which ○○○-○ (24,600,000, 50,1500, 2000, 2000, 58,800, 2002, 2000, 24,600, 500, 2000, 2001, 50,150,000, 2000, 2001, and 46,850,000, 2002, 200, 2000, 46,5000, 200, 202, 850,000) was paid as necessary expenses.

B. The Defendant revealed that ○○○○ was serving military service from August 25, 2000 to October 24, 2002, and deemed that the amount of KRW 24,60,000 for the year 200 and the labor cost of KRW 50,150,00 for the year 201, and the labor cost of KRW 46,850,00 for the year 202 as the labor cost, and imposed the Plaintiff the global income tax of KRW 15,419,320 for the year 200, and imposed the global income tax of KRW 34,154,060 for the year 201, as global income tax of KRW 15,419,320 for the year 200, and KRW 19,537,630 for the year 202.

C. The plaintiff is dissatisfied with the disposition of imposition of global income tax for the year 2000 and filed an objection with the defendant on July 11, 2006. The defendant, on August 18, 2006, included 22,00,000 won in the necessary expenses, which was paid by ○○○ on August 25, 2000 before entering the military, and decided to correct the tax base and tax amount and dismiss the remainder of the objection. The plaintiff appealed with the National Tax Tribunal on September 27, 2006, but was dismissed on May 29, 2007.

D. Around October 4, 2006, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the refund of KRW 14,021,840 (i.e., refund KRW 13,826,270 + additional refund of KRW 195,570).

E. The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the imposition disposition of global income tax for the year 2001 and 2002, and filed an objection with the Defendant on November 10, 2006, but was dismissed on December 22, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the National Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on May 29, 2007.

2. Determination of legality of disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff did not reside in the Republic of Korea as a non-resident who acquired U.S. citizenship, the Plaintiff had ○○○ as a tax manager and paid personnel expenses. ○○○○ was a tax manager from Aug. 25, 2000 to Oct. 24, 2002 who performed military service from Oct. 24, 2002, and continued to be a tax manager inasmuch as departure from the Republic of Korea is freely permitted from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. from 5 p.m. on the day to 10 p.m., and the Plaintiff paid the labor expenses agreed upon to ○○○○, under the premise that the labor expenses were processed, the imposition of global income tax for each year from 200, 201, and 202 is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) On the other hand, in the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of a taxation disposition on the grounds of the illegality of the taxation disposition, the tax authority has the burden of proving the legality of the taxation disposition and the existence of the taxation requirement fact, so the burden of proving necessary expenses, which are the basis of the determination of taxable income, should also be borne by the tax authority. However, only when there are special circumstances such as where the tax authority proves that some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer were falsely appropriated, and the taxpayer's assertion is disputed as to whether they are real expenses or not, and the taxpayer has proved that the other party to the payment was false, it is difficult for the taxpayer to present data such as books and evidence regarding the fact that such expenses were actually paid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du16406, Apr. 14, 2006).

(2) As to the instant case, when the Plaintiff reported the tax base and tax amount of global income tax for each of the years 200, 200, 2001, and 2002 to October 24, 2002, the Plaintiff included 2,60,000 personnel expenses for the year 2,600 to 24, 2000 (22,60,000 won revoked from the objection – 22,000 personnel expenses for the year 201, 50,150,000 personnel expenses for the year 200, and 46,850,000 personnel expenses for the year 202 to the necessary expenses, but the fact that ○○○ was proved to have been paid during the period from August 25, 200 to October 24, 202 by the Plaintiff to the extent that it was proved to have been paid to ○○○ as necessary expenses.

(3) Therefore, it is difficult to find the fact that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, while performing military service as a Katu○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and received benefits as alleged by the Plaintiff, as evidence, that the Plaintiff appeared at the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s testimony. Meanwhile, considering that the Plaintiff’s testimony was written on the 15, 17 through 19, and 27 through 29, and that the Plaintiff’s testimony was written on the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s deposit account on August 25, 200, where the Plaintiff’s place of business was located on the ○○○○○○○○.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.