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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On February 20, 2009, Nonparty 2 entered into a contract for the acquisition of credit ( principal OO00 billion won; hereinafter “instant credit”) againstCC-type DD (hereinafter “DD”) from the CC-type Financial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CC-type”), and Nonparty 2 entered into a contract for the acquisition of credit (hereinafter “the prior credit acquisition limit”) with the O00 billion won (hereinafter “the prior credit acquisition limit”). Of the above OO00 billion won, the down payment O billion won was paid on February 20, 2009, and the remaining OO billion won was paid on March 20, 2009, and the remainder amount was paid on March 6, 2009, and if ParkB-B did not pay the remainder by the agreed date, the down payment and the remainder was reverted to the CC-type performance guarantee.

B. On February 20, 2009, ParkB paid KRW O00 million to theCC Sejong on February 20, 2009 (the O billion won was already paid on February 17, 2009), and on March 16, 2009, LB borrowed and paid KRW O00 million from the Plaintiff (the contract was rescinded by ParkBB on March 6, 2009, because it was unable to pay KRW O00 billion, but the contract was rescinded, but ParkB decided to withdraw the contract by mutual agreement upon payment on March 16, 2009, and the date of the remainder payment was set as June 16, 2009).

C. On September 30, 2009, as ParkB was unable to pay the remainder on the outstanding payment date, CCTV concluded a contract with ParkB on September 30, 2009 to cancel the prior credit acquisition agreement with the ParkB, and notified O00 million won, which is the down payment and the remainder payment deposit, to be reverted toCC species. On September 30, 2009,CC species concluded a contract to transfer the instant claim to the Plaintiff at KRW O0 billion (hereinafter “the instant credit acquisition limit”).

D. On November 24, 2009, ParkB filed a lawsuit seeking the return of KRW 00 million from the transfer of claims that had already been paid toCC-type gold by the OO2OOOOOO on November 24, 2009. On February 23, 2010, ParkB entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff to offset the claim for the return of KRW 00 million against the obligation of KRW O00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,00

E. After conducting a tax investigation with respect to ParkB, the director of the Central District Tax Office notified each of the heads of the competent tax offices that ParkB received or decided to offset the withdrawal of the lawsuit from the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “Withdrawal of the lawsuit in this case”) in return for the said withdrawal of the lawsuit (hereinafter referred to as the “Withdrawal of the dispute in this case”) shall be deemed to fall under “the honorarium under Article 21(1)17 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10408, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the “Income Tax Act”) and shall be deemed to fall under other income. In addition, the director of the Central Tax Office notified ParkB that he would impose the comprehensive income tax on other income, the additional tax on the Plaintiff, and the additional tax on non-payment of the additional tax and the additional

F. Accordingly, on September 4, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the correction of the OO of global income tax for the year 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

G. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 1, 2013. However, upon dismissal on September 4, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed the instant lawsuit on November 27, 2014.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, each entry of Eul evidence 1 to 8, pleading

[Purpose of the whole]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant contract for the acquisition of the claim of this case is the substance of the contract for the acceptance of the prior to the instant claim betweenCC-type gold and ParkB. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 100 million to ParkB in return for the withdrawal of the lawsuit cannot be a honorarium, and the acquisition of the claim of this case also paid to ParkB in return for the consent or acceptance to the acceptance of the contract. Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant imposed the comprehensive income tax on the instant money by deeming it as other income is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

The defendant issued the disposition of this case under the premise that the plaintiff paid the plaintiff to ParkB in return for the withdrawal of the lawsuit of this case. Thus, this constitutes other income under Article 21 (1) 17 of the Income Tax Act. However, in light of the following points, it is deemed illegal.

Article 21 (1) 17 of the Income Tax Act refers to money and valuables provided as a means of a case in connection with administrative affairs or provision of services, etc., and whether it constitutes such money and valuables should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the motive and purpose of receiving the money and valuables, relationship with the other party, amount, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du27288, Sept. 13, 2013; 97Nu20304, Jan. 15, 199).

However, the following circumstances revealed in addition to the purport of the aforementioned facts and evidence revealed, i.e., the Plaintiff’s credit transfer amount paid to CCB pursuant to the contract, and the total amount paid to POB is KRW 00 million. Thus, prior to the transfer of bonds of this case, the amount of O0 billion corresponds to the amount of OB0 billion under the contract, and OB00, which the Plaintiff leased to YB, was premised on the fact that POB did not use the remainder of the credit transfer amount as the performance bond for the payment of the remainder of the credit transfer amount, and thus, it can be deemed that CC would not be paid to CCB, and Article 5 of the contract of this case also provides that OCCB’s credit transfer amount is not a new bond transfer contract, and that the Plaintiff’s transfer of bonds and the transfer of bonds of this case constitutes 1B00 million, and that the Plaintiff’s transfer of bonds and the transfer of bonds of this case constitutes a forced bond transfer or transfer of bonds of this case.

Therefore, the disposition of this case made under the premise that it is 'the honorarium' as a "other income" is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.