Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap64391 ( June 19, 2015)

If the necessary expenses for processing are calculated for several years and the rental income is omitted, the imposition of unjust under-reported penalty tax is legitimate.

The plaintiffs are merely a passive under-reported case without an active purpose of tax avoidance, such as the fact that the plaintiffs included necessary expenses in the account for repair expenses without any disbursement of repair expenses or without any material supporting the spending of the repair expenses for several years, and the fact that the rental income has been continuously omitted.

2015Nu50414 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

HongA and 1

Sung Dong Tax Office et al. 2

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap64391 decided June 19, 2015

January 15, 2016

January 29, 2016

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. The plaintiffs' part of the attached amount decreased among the plaintiffs' lawsuits of this case is dismissed.

B. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of the global income tax of 00 won for the first term of December 1, 2013, of 209, of 00 won for the second term of 2009, of value-added tax for the second term of 2000 won for the second term of 2010, of value-added tax for the second term of 2000 won for the second term of 201, of value-added tax for the second term of 2000 won for the second term of 2011, of 00 won for the second term of 200, of value-added tax for the second term of 200 for the second term of 200, of global income for the second term of 200, of 200 for each global income tax of 200, of 200 for the second term of 200, of 201 for the second term of 200.

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 adding the following matters to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

○ The following shall be added to “the details of imposition disposition” at the end of the sixth page:

“The Particulars of Reduction or Correction of Value-Added Tax

Year/Period portion

Classification

Original Decision

Decision of Correction

Reduction of Amount

Jinay

209.1

Tax Base

79,015,251

78,651,615

△△63,636

Amount of tax

2,255,671

2,180,472

△△5,199

209.2

Tax Base

82,593,584

82,157,220

△△△36,364

Amount of tax

2,415,360

2,327,518

△△87,832

2010.1

Tax Base

85,510,375

85,074,011

△△△36,364

Amount of tax

2,350,200

2,264,738

△△85,462

2010.2

Tax Base

86,496,433

86,060,069

△△△36,364

Amount of tax

2,403,960

2,320,906

△△△83,054

2011.1

Tax Base

85,657,155

85,293,519

△△63,636

Amount of tax

1,594,634

1,523,762

△△△70,872

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiffs' claim for cancellation of the amount reduced in the separate sheet among the lawsuits in this case is unlawful and dismissed, and all of the remaining claims against the defendants should be dismissed as without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is unfair because it is not possible to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim as to the reduced amount of the above details because of the cancellation of the disposition due to the omission of the details of reduction or correction of value-added tax added as above in the separate sheet (the judgment of the court of first instance was the result of dismissing the plaintiffs' claim as to the reduced amount of the above details as to the reduced amount of the value-added tax since the cancellation of the disposition was not made in the separate sheet). Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is to be modified as above and it is so decided as per Disposition (the plaintiff is not only the plaintiff's claim that the above plaintiffs transferred the amount of KRW 1450,000,000 to Ga on November 27, 2012 after the closing of argument to the court of first instance, but also the plaintiff's claim that the above amount was not the above 1B receipts or 4010.