beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.03.17 2015구합9582

종합소득세부과처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized by Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 through 7, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 1-1 through 4, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4-1 through 4, Eul evidence 4-1 and the whole purport of pleadings:

On April 1, 1983, the Plaintiff became a new bank (hereinafter referred to as "new bank") and retired on February 28, 2005, and was paid a lecture in the field of credit-related laws from 2009 to 2012 at the B Training Institute from 2009 to 2012, and reported each of the above amounts as other income at the time of the final return of global income tax for the pertinent year after receiving KRW 53,269,300,72,054,90,054,315,300, and KRW 65,315,300, 201, and KRW 64,387,50 as other income at the time of the final return of global income tax for the pertinent year.

B. In the audit procedure against the Defendant, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office demanded that the Plaintiff surrender whether the said lecture medical care, etc. received from the B Training Institute from 2009 to 2012 constituted other income not business income. After reviewing the data submitted by the B Training Institute, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff on July 1, 2014 on the ground that the service cost of the said lecture medical care, etc. constituted non-other business income, and that the service cost of the said lecture medical care, etc. falls under 1,005,170, global income tax of 2009, global income tax of 7,381,80, global income tax of 2010, global income tax of 5,519,860, global income tax of 2011, global income tax of 4,562,340 for the year 201

(2) On July 3, 2014, the Defendant issued a revised notice of reduction (hereinafter “instant disposition”) in accordance with the amount of each global income tax for which the initial disposition was sought from the Plaintiff on July 1, 2014, on the ground that only the part of the lecture (hereinafter “instant issues income”) among the lecture fees, Plaintiff fees, transportation expenses, lodging expenses, etc. was considered as business income, not other income.

C. The plaintiff.