Cheongbu 201bu 1075 (24. 2012.09)

Where the parties to the instant lawsuit are multiple parties, the attorney fee shall be divided equally into the number of the parties, barring special circumstances.

Even if the lawsuit related to this case is related to the distribution of inherited property, in light of the fact that it is solely related to the distribution of inherited property and it cannot be concluded that there is no business interest of the plaintiff and business interest of the plaintiff, the attorney fees out of the attorney fees, which the plaintiff filed as a party and entered in order to respond thereto, are expenses paid in relation to the plaintiff

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012 Gohap6217 Revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

AAcarra Co., Ltd.

Head of Eastern Tax Office

June 20, 2013

July 18, 2013

1. The defendant's assertion against the plaintiff

A. Of value-added tax for the second period of December 13, 2010, the part exceeding 000 won for the second period of December 2005, 200, the part exceeding 000 won for the second period of February 2, 2006, the part exceeding 000 won for the second period of February 2, 2007, the part exceeding 000 won for the second period of February 2, 2007, and the part exceeding 000 won for the second period of February 2, 2007, and the part exceeding 000 won for the second period of February 2, 2008, and the part exceeding 00 won for the second period of December 2, 2009, and the part exceeding 00 won for each main tax of KRW 1,000 for the second period of year of 20 for 209, and the part exceeding 000 won for the second period of 2009.

B. Each disposition imposing a value-added tax on February 5, 2013 exceeding KRW 000 out of KRW 000 out of the first period penalty tax in 2008, and exceeding KRW 000 out of KRW 000 out of the second period penalty tax in 2008, and exceeding KRW 000 out of KRW 000 out of the second period penalty tax in 2009, and each disposition imposing a tax exceeding KRW 000 out of the second period penalty tax in 2009 shall be revoked, respectively.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 4/5 of the litigation costs shall be borne respectively by the plaintiff and the defendant living together.

The defendant against the plaintiff

1. Value-added tax on December 13, 2010 00 won [2.00 won for the second period of 2005 (2.00 won + additional tax 000 won), for the second period of 2006 (2.000 won + additional tax 000 won for the first period of 2007 (200 won + additional tax 000 won), for the second period of 2007 (200 won + additional tax 000), and for the second period of 2007 (200 won + additional tax 000), for the first period of 2008 (200 won), and for the second period of 2008 (200 won for the second period of 200), for the second period of 2008 (2000 won for this tax), and for the second period of 200 (000 won for the second period of 2009) and for the second period of 200 (20000)

2. The imposition of value-added tax on February 5, 2013 (value-added tax amounting to KRW 000 for the first term portion in 2008, KRW 000 for the second term portion in 2008, and KRW 000 for the first term portion in 2009, and KRW 000 for the second term portion in 2009) shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on June 26, 1964 and engaged in real estate rental business, etc.

B. On March 26, 2007, the Plaintiff purchased OOO000 (hereinafter “OOO00”) which is a multi-unit house on the land other than 000 and 12 parcels of land in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, for 000 won, completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 24, 2008, and on June 21, 2007, purchased Busan OOO0 (hereinafter “OO0”) at 000 won, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 16, 2008.

C. During the imposition period from the first half to the first half of 2007 tax year from the first half of 2007, the Plaintiff paid 15 tax invoices for purchase price of 000 won ("first tax invoice") in connection with the acquisition of OO head and human design and construction costs, etc. in the second half of 2008 ("first tax invoice") and three tax invoices for purchase of 00 won ("second tax invoice for supply") received in connection with the interior design cost, etc. of OO-dong housing during the second half of 2008 taxable period from the second half to the first half of 2005, and the first half of 2005 from the second half of 2005 to the first half of 2010, the Plaintiff paid 300 won tax invoices for each of the above 205 tax invoices for each of the above 30 years tax invoices for purchase and supply (hereinafter "the above tax invoices for each of the above 300 years following the tax invoices for 2005 years.

<1> <1>

(Omission)

<2> <2>

(Omission)

<3> Tax invoice 3>

(Omission)

D. On November 2010, the Defendant conducted an investigation of business relevance with respect to AA’s expenses and attorney fees on the O’s housing units with OO 000 and O’s fees, and on December 13, 2010, deemed that it was not related to the Plaintiff’s business, and notified a correction of KRW 000,000 of value-added tax from 205 to 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) (the value-added tax amount at each imposition period at that time is the sum of the sum of the sum of paragraphs 1 and 2).

E. On March 11, 2011, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but the said request was dismissed on September 24, 201.

F. On February 5, 2013, when the argument of this case was pending, the Defendant revoked ex officio the portion of the value-added tax in 2008 and 2009 among the disposition of this case on February 1, 2013, and specified the type, calculation basis, etc. of the additional tax (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of this case" and "the first and second dispositions of this case" as stated in paragraph 2.

G. On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the deduction of input tax on the home screener, and the human air conditioner, etc. purchased in relation to the OOO and OO house, but the Busan District Court was sentenced to dismissal on February 17, 2012, and filed an appeal and a final appeal on February 17, 2012, but became final and conclusive around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] The whole purport of the statements, Gap, two (including natural disaster; hereinafter the same shall apply), three and 4, and two 1, 3, 6 through 10, 16, and 17, and 17.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) OFOOOO is purchased for the purpose of use as the Plaintiff’s head office, and is used as rest facilities in some spaces, but most of the rest places are used for real estate leasing business, such as customer counseling, concluding contracts, etc. Therefore, it should be viewed that it falls under the Plaintiff’s business related assets. Therefore, the input tax amount should be deducted, such as acquisition of OOOOOOOO, household purchase (deposit, etc.), and human test cost.

(2) The plaintiff mainly engages in real estate rental business, while running a business, as a new business (hereinafter referred to as "new business") such as performance and viewing, exhibition, rental, art sales, art goods sales, and art goods sales, etc. In order to use the plaintiff's new business (hereinafter referred to as "new business") as a hub office and a new business place for the plaintiff's Seoul and a new business, and the plaintiff purchased and profit from the lease of OO commercial corporation (hereinafter referred to as "OO commercial corporation"), and OO commercial corporation uses OO's home as a art exhibition, etc., and OO's house should be deemed to fall under the plaintiff's assets related to the plaintiff's business. Accordingly, OO's house should be deemed to fall under the plaintiff's assets related to the plaintiff's business. Accordingly, since the costs of audio system installation, furniture, and interior design cost, etc. of the lawsuit related to the plaintiff's case should be deducted as input tax amount, the plaintiff's conjunctive legal relations between the plaintiff and the party to the lawsuit, and the plaintiff's direct and indirect interests of the plaintiff's lawsuit related to the plaintiff.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Ex officio determination: Determination as to the penalty tax in the disposition No. 1 of this case in the second half of 2005, the second half of 2006, and the second half of 2007, and the second half of 2007.

A) When a single tax payment notice imposes both the principal tax and the additional tax, the tax amount and the basis for calculation thereof should be stated in the tax payment notice separately, and when multiple kinds of additional tax are to be imposed, the tax amount and the basis for calculation thereof should be separated between each other and provided so that the taxpayer can per se know the details of each taxation disposition. As such, the imposition disposition of additional tax should not be deemed unlawful if the taxpayer merely states the total amount of additional tax without disclosing the type and the basis for calculation of the amount thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du12347, Oct. 18, 2012). However, even if there is any defect in which matters required in the tax payment notice are omitted, if all necessary entries in the tax payment notice, etc. sent to the taxpayer prior to the tax payment notice, are already stated, and if it is apparent that the taxpayer is not at all hindered in the determination as to whether to object to the tax payment notice and appeal at all, it may be corrected or corrected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du397.

B) In light of the above legal principles, according to the health stand and evidence No. 2-1 to No. 4, and the defendant, when making the disposition No. 1 of this case, it can be found that the tax payment notice did not state at all the basis or type of additional tax calculation, and there is no reason to deem that the defect was corrected or cured. Thus, the part of the disposition No. 1 of this case on imposition of additional tax for the second period of 2005 and the second period of 2006 and 1 and 2 years of 207 should be considered to be unlawful without further examination.

2) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

A) Article 12(1)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 915, Jan. 1, 2010); Article 12(1)1; Article 17(2)2; and Article 17(7); Articles 34(1) and 60(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 18, 2010); Article 27 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 201); Article 49(1)1(a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22951, Jun. 3, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 22951; Presidential Decree No. 3568, Dec. 3, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 22010; Presidential Decree No. 2200, Jan. 10, 20, 20).

B) Determination on the tax invoices Nos. 1 and 2 of this case

In full view of the above-mentioned statutes and evidence evidence evidence Nos. 5, and evidence Nos. 11, 13, and 14, the following circumstances are revealed.

(1) As to OFOOO

Although the plaintiff alleged that he purchased OO units for the purpose of using them as the plaintiff's head office, the plaintiff purchased O units on June 21, 2007, and on January 6, 2008, after the registration of ownership transfer was completed, the plaintiff's corporate register was corrected as the plaintiff's head office on March 8, 2011, and the registration of business was corrected on March 14, 2011. The above purchase time and the registration of transfer of the head office vary for a long period of time, and OO unitsO units have been installed around July 2009, and it is difficult to view the plaintiff's internal structure as the purchase price for the plaintiff's general office, and it is difficult to view the purchase price as the purchase price for the plaintiff's office for the purpose of purchasing O units as the purchase price for the purpose of using 000 O units because it is difficult to view it as the purchase price for 00 00 O units or units because it is difficult to view it as the purchase price for 000 0000 O units or units.

(2) As to the O-dong housing

From 207 to 2009, the plaintiff added exhibition and rental business for the purpose of a legal entity on the corporate register on March 27, 2009, and all of the tax invoices of this case are 2008 and it is difficult for the plaintiff to regard them as expenses for the purpose of legal entity in the plaintiff's assertion. On November 22, 2010, the plaintiff registered the primary business as a real estate rental business with the location of a branch office as of November 22, 2010, while the new business was not included in the new business. On October 29, 2010, it is difficult to view that the OE house was generated before the establishment of the new business for 20 years, and that the tax invoice of this case was 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 20 years to 10,000,0000,0000,000 won tax amount for the 20.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the supply price of the second tax invoice of this case is not subject to deduction, and that it should be deducted is not reasonable.

C) Determination as to the third tax invoice of this case

In other words, the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively considering the legal provisions and legal principles as seen earlier, and each facts of recognition, are independent corporations, and even if the least OO type is the largest shareholder of the plaintiff, it appears that the plaintiff bears the attorney's fees for the lawsuit against the least OO criminal trial or leastO only for expenses unrelated to the plaintiff's business. On the other hand, even if the leastO type of the lawsuit in this case was dead, the plaintiff becomes a party to the lawsuit regardless of the plaintiff's intent, and the mostO or KimO type of the lawsuit in this case is not directly related to the plaintiff's inherited property's business, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff is not related to the plaintiff's own business and the plaintiff's selection and appointment fees for the lawsuit in this case, and it is generally acceptable to conclude that the plaintiff is not directly related to the plaintiff's inherited property's business and the plaintiff's selection and appointment fees for the lawsuit in this case.

On the other hand, it is reasonable in light of the empirical rule to view that the attorney fees are borne equally in the number of the parties to the instant lawsuit, barring special circumstances, and that the number of the parties to the instant lawsuit is calculated by equally dividing into the number of the parties to the lawsuit, such as the attorney fees (supply fees) used by the Plaintiff in response to the lawsuit as the parties to the lawsuit, and the amount of the attorney fees for the second period portion in 2006, the first period portion in 2007, the second period portion in 2007, and the second period portion in 2007, and the second period portion in 2008, the first period portion in 200, and the second period portion in 2009, the second period portion in 200, and the second period portion in 200, the second period in 2009, and the amount of the attorney fees for each of the Defendant’s dispositions and the tax amount for the above attorney fees for each of the instant dispositions are as follows.

(The following table omitted)

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary argument that the whole input tax deduction for the attorney fees in the lawsuit related to this case is without merit, and the plaintiff's preliminary argument that the plaintiff asserted the input tax deduction for the attorney fees in the case that the plaintiff responded as a party to this case is with merit.

3) Sub-determination

Of the disposition of this case, the part of the imposition of additional tax for the second period of 205, 2000 won for the second period of 200, and 1 for the second period of 2007, and each of the imposition of additional tax for the second period of 2000 won for the first period of 2000 won for the first period of 200 won for the first period of 2000 won for each of the imposition of additional tax for the second period of 2000 won for the second period of 2000 won for the second period of 2000 won for the second period of 2000 won for the second period of 2000 won for the second period of 2000 won for the second period of 200-9 for each of the imposition of additional tax for 2000 won for the second period of 2000 won for the second period of 2000 won for the second year of 200- 7.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is partly justified within the above scope of recognition.