민사소송과 형사고발사건을 해결하는 조건으로 수령한 기타소득의 사례금에 해당함[국승]
Cho High Court Decision 2009Du4055 (Law No. 29, 2010)
It constitutes the honorarium of other income received under the condition of resolving civil action and criminal accusation cases.
The disposition imposed on other income is legitimate because it falls under the honorarium received under the condition that the civil lawsuit and criminal accusation case are smoothly resolved, not the deposit money was returned.
2010Guhap37551 global income and revocation of such disposition
XX Kim
O Head of tax office
July 15, 2011
August 26, 2011
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 234,910,270 for the Plaintiff on September 4, 2009 shall be revoked.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff received KRW 30 million in May 29, 2006, and KRW 200 million in June 16, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “instant issues amount”) from thisA.
B. On September 4, 2009, the Defendant issued a correction and notice of KRW 234,910,270 of the global income tax for the year 2006, on the ground that the instant issue amount was received on the condition that the Plaintiff would smoothly resolve civil litigation and criminal complaint cases filed against the Plaintiff, which is a party to the PPPC (hereinafter referred to as the “PPC”), the Plaintiff, and the honorarium received on the condition that the case was resolved smoothly (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 10-1, 2
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion
On July 1, 2003, the Plaintiff lent KRW 1 billion to thisCC, and thisCC deposited KRW 1,539,205,479 to the Seoul Central District Court without paying the loan up to the due date. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Plaintiff, instead of withdrawing the said deposit, agreed that the Plaintiff should have only the principal of the loan out of the said deposit. However, as the Plaintiff withdraws the deposit, thisCC and thisAA made the said deposit out of the money as the funds of J&C, which can be punished for embezzlement, by requesting that they would be punished for embezzlement, and that they receive a refund thereafter, is the key amount of the instant disposition. Accordingly, the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant issue was an honorarium is unlawful.
B. Determination
(1) Generally, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing tax, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements should be borne by the imposing authority. However, if it is revealed that the facts of taxation requirements are presumed in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit, it cannot be readily concluded that the other party is an illegal disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirements, unless the other party proves that the facts at issue cannot be subject to the application of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6392, Nov. 13, 2002).
(2) According to the above legal principles, the Plaintiff was not entitled to KRW 50 billion on July 1, 2003 to KRW 1.5 billion on the date of 00,000,000,000,000 (including 50,000,000,000,000,0000,000) 20,000,000,000,000 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 20,000,000,000,000,000 5,000,00,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,000,000,00,00,00,000,00,000,00,00,00.
3. Conclusion
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff who has lost.