beta
Text
The judgment of the first instance is revoked.
In February 7, 2018, the Defendant transferred to the Plaintiff on February 7, 2018 income tax of 108,973.
Reasons
A. Although the burden of proof is borne, the deduction of necessary expenses is not only favorable to the person without tax payment, but most of the facts that form the basis of necessary expenses is located within the control area of the person with no tax payment, and thus, there is a case where it is difficult for the tax office to prove it (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du942, Feb. 15, 2013). B. 1) The Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction of F and the new construction of the instant building (the first floor and the seventh floor above the ground), and the main contents are as follows.
Contract for Construction Work
3. Contract amount: 1,452,00,000 won (1,320,000,000 won for supply, and value-added tax of KRW 132,00,00); and
8. Construction period: construction period of August 4, 1999, the first half of June 5, 200, the first half of June 5, 200, the second half of which was made * The plaintiff and the second half of which was the first half of which was the special condition for construction works of the F representative.
1. Official mission: Construction amount of a temporary term J building construction work scheduled to be newly built in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju: 1,452,00,000 won * The scale of construction * the scale of construction 528 square meters (1,745.28 square meters) on the ground level 7 square meters on the ground level 1st underground floor;
2.In the execution of the above construction, A shall describe the contents of consultation.
* The contract amount: 150,00,000 won - 250,000 won for the new construction of the building of this case from F (250,00,000 won for the new construction of the building of this case) on October 15, 1999 by the debtor F (F representative M), 3,00 won for the plaintiff and B, 67,705,233 won for the claim amount, and F with the claim amount paid from the third debtor for the new construction of the building of this case (hereinafter “provisional attachment order of this case”), F, on February 1, 200, renounced the new construction of the building of this case, and the plaintiff concluded a new construction of the building of this case on February 1, 200 as follows: