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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s refusal to rectify income tax made on March 2, 2018 shall be revoked.

(a) Operation of the Plaintiff’s insurance agency and receipt of piece rates;

1) On June 11, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a performance-based payment agreement with the CCC (hereinafter referred to as “CCC”) with a minimum period of at least five years and three months, including attached Table 1’s and major details of the performance-based payment agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”).

2) On July 16, 2012, the CCC appointed the Plaintiff as an insurance solicitor of the CCC and entered into a commission agreement between the Plaintiff and the CCC to pay solicitation fees for the Plaintiff’s insurance solicitation performance. From July 16, 2012 to July 16, 2012, the CCC worked as the Svisaer at the branch of CCC Seoul, and operated DD branches with BM by increasing the number of team members and increasing the size.

3) The Plaintiff’s achievement rate for the first year (from July 16, 2012 to July 15, 2013) is 97.486901070616%. CCC paid KRW 841,622,142 won in total by settling accounts of the Plaintiff’s performance rate for the first year according to the instant agreement (i.e., KRW 431,659,091 x 97.486907070616%) and monthly performance rate (i.e., KRW 431,659,091 x 431,659,091 x 97.48690707016%).

B. The Plaintiff’s performance rate and obligation to return performance rates to CCC

1) On August 26, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to CCC a written request for dismissal from office to the insurance solicitor, and CCC dismissed the Plaintiff on September 29, 2014. The Plaintiff’s second year performance condition fulfillment rate was 71.127270574%.

2) The amount to be refunded to CCC pursuant to Article 7 of the instant arrangement was 227,69,060 won (==841,622,142 won on piece rates paid in the first year settlement x (863,318,318,182 won on piece rates paid in the first year settlement x 71.1272705744%) and 182,269,91 won for the third year return [18,91 won (total performance rates 863,318,182 x 50%) - the amount deducted when the second year piece rates are settled in the second year (=863,318,182 won -863,69,182 won - 841,622,142 won) - the amount to be refunded in the second year - the amount to be refunded to 209,3609,639,649).

3) On April 22, 2016, the Seoul Central District Court 2015Gahap000 filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the return of performance rates pursuant to the instant agreement. On April 22, 2016, the said court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff that “the Defendant would pay the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from March 17, 2015 to the date of full payment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant judgment”). The said judgment became final and conclusive as it is on May 25, 2016.

C. For the Plaintiff’s partial recognition of global income tax return and claim for correction

1) On July 3, 2014, the Plaintiff calculated the total amount of income for the year 2012 as KRW 791,703,973, and calculated the necessary expenses as KRW 444,788,549, and reported the total amount of income for the year 2012 as KRW 346,915,424. On June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff calculated the total amount of income for the year 2013 as KRW 383,422,921, calculated the necessary expenses as KRW 262,016,890, and reported the total amount of income for the year 2013 as KRW 121,406,031, and paid the total amount of income for the year 2013.

2) Following the conclusion of the instant judgment on January 16, 2018, according to the instant judgment, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction of global income tax (hereinafter “instant claim for correction”) to the effect that KRW 182,269,91 ought to be reduced respectively from the global income amount (income amount) accrued in 2012 to the global income amount (income amount) and KRW 227,693,060, and from the global income amount (income amount) accrued in 2013.

3) Accordingly, the Defendant accepted a part of the Plaintiff’s claim for correction of the instant case and determined necessary expenses to be included in the taxable period including the date on which the necessary expenses are determined under Article 39 of the Income Tax Act (determined based on the record after the end of the taxable period). The amount of KRW 227,693,060 for the first year refund 2013 and KRW 181,175,033 for the second year refund (=182,269,91 for the second year refund - the unpaid insurance fee - the unpaid insurance fee of KRW 1,094,958) shall be added to the necessary expenses for the year 2014. Accordingly, on March 2, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to refund the Plaintiff global income tax of KRW 25,093,520 for the year 20, global income tax of KRW 23,663,940 for the year 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

'Disposition' was made.

D. Plaintiff’s appeal

On May 29, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on October 5, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 4 (including branch numbers), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the instant agreement, the Plaintiff stipulated that the performance terms and conditions of each of the following years and team maintenance rates should be returned if the Plaintiff fails to meet or is dismissed, but the entire performance rates can only be confirmed when the contract is terminated or dismissed from the insurance solicitor, and the amount of performance rates corresponding to each of the following years cannot be specified. The instant refund should be included in the amount of income reduction or necessary expenses by responding to the income generated. As such, the Plaintiff should reduce the amount of income or include necessary expenses in the necessary expenses in proportion to the amount of performance rates received in the year 2012 and the year 2013.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) Additional modification of the reasons for the disposition

가) 피고는 당초 이 사건 반환금의 각 연도별 반환금액이 2013년 및 2014년에 확정되었다고 보아 2013년 필요경비로 227,693,060원, 2014년 필요경비로 181,175,033원을 산입하여 원고에게 2013년 귀속분 25,093,520원 및 2014년 귀속분 23,663,940원을 각 감액경정 및 환급하는 이 사건 처분을 하였다. 그러나 피고는 이 사건 소송 과정에서, 이 사건 반환금 중 2차년도의 성과급 반환금액 227,693,060원은 2차년도(2013. 7. 16. 〜 2014. 7. 15.)의 말일인 2014. 7. 15.에, 3차년도의 성과급 반환금액 181,175,033원은 3차년도(2014. 7. 16. 〜 2014. 9. 29.)의 말일인 2014. 9. 29.에 각 확정되었던바, 이 사건 반환금의 발생 및 그 액수는 전액 2014년도에 확정되었으므

Ro, the reason for the instant disposition was modified to the effect that it should be included in the necessary expenses reverted to year 2014.

B) Since the subject matter of a taxation revocation lawsuit is objective existence of the tax amount determined by the tax authority, the tax authority may submit new data that can support the legitimacy of the tax base or amount of tax recognized in the relevant disposition, or exchange and change the reasons within the scope that maintains the identity of the disposition, and it shall not necessarily be able to determine the legitimacy of the disposition by only the data at the time of the disposition or to assert only the reasons for the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8796, May 16, 1997). In this case, we examine the subject matter of the disposition in this case, since the original reasons for the disposition in this case and the changed reasons for the disposition are different only from the legal assessment of the objective facts, and they do not differ from the basic facts that form the basis for taxation, it is reasonable to deem that it is permitted to constitute the addition and change of the reasons for disposition within the scope that maintains

(ii) relevant legal principles and regulations;

A) Article 39(1) of the Income Tax Act provides that “The year to which the total amount of revenue and necessary expenses of a resident are reverted shall be the taxable period in which the total amount of revenue and the necessary expenses are determined, shall be the taxable period in which the necessary expenses are determined,” and where the right that is the cause of such income has not been determined, such income is realized,

B) The principle of confirmation of right refers to a method of calculating income when a right that is the cause of income exists between the time when the right that is the cause of income and the time when the income is realized, deeming that there is an income when the right that is not the time when the income is realized is the time when the income is realized, and that it is significant to allow a taxpayer to levy a prior taxation on an uncertain income under the premise that it is realized in the future, and to prevent the taxpayer from sustaining the income for a taxable year. In order to ensure that the income is realized, even if it is not necessary until the income is realized, the right that is the cause of income is considerably mature and confirmed because it is possible to realize the income, and therefore, the income is generated only when the right is established without this degree. The issue of whether the right to receive the income is mature and finalized can not be uniformly determined by comprehensively taking into account the nature and content of the individual right and various matters of the law in fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu720889, Apr. 28, 1987).

3) Specific determination

A) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff and CCC determined that: (a) the Plaintiff and CCC should pay the special performance-based bonus to the first day after the commission contract was prepared; (b) monthly performance-based bonus to the first year of commission contract; and (c) the Plaintiff would have actually received the special performance-based bonus from CCC during the period from July 16, 2012 to July 15, 2013; (b) the Plaintiff appears to have actually received the special performance-based bonus and monthly performance-based bonus from CCC during the period from July 16, 2012 to July 15, 2013; and (c) according to the content of the instant agreement, the Plaintiff’s portion of the monthly performance-based bonus and monthly performance-based bonus belonging to CCC’s 14th anniversary of the last day of the second year to the 20th year of July 15, 2014 to the Plaintiff’s 20th year of performance-based performance-based bonus.

B) Therefore, it is reasonable to view the instant refund as necessary expenses in the year 2014 to which the date on which the obligation to return and the scope of return under Article 39(1) of the Income Tax Act becomes final and conclusive (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1349, Apr. 2, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 201Do329, Apr. 1, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 201Do329, Apr. 29, 201).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.