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

A. New AA (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) was an owner of a commercial building operated in XX apartment in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) and operated a leasing business on the said real estate. However, on February 2004, the Gangnam 2 Complex Apartment Reconstruction Association (hereinafter referred to as “the instant association”) removed the instant real estate without the consent of the deceased, around February 2004.

B. While a lawsuit was pending between the deceased and the instant association on April 2006, the compromise between the two parties was established, and the deceased transferred the instant real estate to the said association. Accordingly, the deceased reported and paid the transfer income tax on May 25, 2006 with the transfer value of the instant real estate at KRW 000.

C. On March 15, 2009, the Deceased’s four brothers and sisters, including the Plaintiff, (hereinafter “Plaintiffs, etc.”) succeeded to the Deceased, due to the death of the deceased, who was travelling to the area as a mentor.

D. On or around June 2010, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted an inheritance tax investigation on the deceased on the transfer of the instant real property; (b) as a result, the amount received by the deceased from the instant association in relation to the transfer of the instant real property is a total of 000 won (the transfer value of the instant real property + the remainder of 000 won by side agreement), and thus, (c) the said 00 won is deemed a revenue from the business income under Article 19(1)11 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144, Dec. 306; hereinafter the same shall apply), and among them, notified the agency of global income tax by deducting the amount paid to the 200 won, which was paid by the deceased to the DaB attorney-at-law on behalf of the other party of the said association, and the amount paid to the head of the office office of DD attorney, which was paid to the association, and by deducting the tax base and tax amount from the global income tax base.

E. On August 2, 2010, the Defendant designated the Plaintiff, etc. as a joint and several tax obligor under Article 24(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and imposed a global income tax of KRW 000 on the deceased, etc. for the year 2006 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 7, 201 upon filing an objection, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on June 22, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, 11, and 12 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the Deceased did not receive KRW 000 (the portion for which the Union received KRW 000 from the union, which received KRW 000,000, and paid KRW 000 again toCC; hereinafter referred to as “the dispute amount”) as litigation costs and consolation money from the union of this case. Accordingly, the portion exceeding the global income tax amount on the amount of KRW 00,00, which recognized the omission of the Report by the Deceased, among the dispositions of this case, exceeds

1) The Defendant rendered the instant disposition based on the agreement between D and the deceased that “the instant association shall pay KRW 000 of the transfer price of the instant real estate, KRW 000 of the damages, and KRW 000 of the costs of lawsuit and mental consolation money not operated as a result of the removal of the building, as required by the Deceased,” on the ground that the Deceased was separately paid the amount of issues other than the above KRW 000,00,000, and there was no specific evidence that the instant agreement was forged by D Attorney-at-Law’s office work, and that there was no other issue amount received by the Deceased. Therefore, the instant disposition was erroneous.

2) Even if it is recognized that the deceased received the controversial amount, the above amount was received as litigation costs and consolation money, and thus, it does not constitute business income and other income subject to taxation under the Income Tax Act.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The instant association had a duty to file a trust registration under the name of the association against the deceased, who is a member of the association, in accordance with the association’s articles of association on the instant real estate (commercial building located within the project implementation district). As such, the deceased filed a lawsuit for confirmation of existence of rebuilding resolution seeking confirmation that the rebuilding resolution of the said association is null and void due to a counterclaim (2005Gahap1054). In the instant case, the Seoul Eastern District Court dismissed the principal claim of the instant association, and declared that it accepted the deceased’s counterclaim. On September 8, 2005, the instant association filed an appeal against the judgment of the Seoul East District Court (2005Na71743).

2) On February 9, 2006 and March 6, 2006, the instant association sent a public notice to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall request the rental of KRW 000 as the purchase amount of the network’s share in the commercial building, which is a contractor for the said rearrangement project.” Accordingly, the instant association received a loan from the said contractor, and then remitted the amount of KRW 00 on March 16, 2006 to the Plaintiff’s attorney-at-law’s account as well as KRW 00 on April 11, 2006, respectively.

(3) On April 12, 2006, with respect to the case of Seoul High Court No. 2005Na71743 on April 12, 2006 between the deceased and the instant association, a sales contract (No. 2) with the content that the deceased sells the instant real estate to the association in KRW 00,000, and the deceased and the instant association withdraw their counterclaims with the principal lawsuit (Evidence No. 1) was written, and on the same day, the sales contract (Evidence No. 2) with the content that the deceased sell the instant real estate to KRW 00,000 on the same day. On the other hand, there was a contract with the deceased and the instant association as a party to the instant agreement,

(A) Contents of the following agreements are omitted:

5) On April 12, 2006, the office directorCC delegated the authority with respect to the above case by DD Attorney-at-law paid 000 won in total to the deceased in the form of one cashier’s check (00 won) and one 000 won certificate of deposit (00 won x 13) from DD’s account in which 00 was deposited (at that time, the union was issued by BB attorney-at-law in relation to 00 won of the above certificate of deposit).

6) The Seoul High Court case No. 2005Na71743 was concluded on May 16, 2006 as the withdrawal of the lawsuit by the instant association.

7) On May 18, 2010,CC drafted a factual confirmation (Evidence B No. 9) of the following summary.

(A) The following facts are omitted:

8) From 2008, E was entrusted with the duties of the president of the instant association as a proxy by the president of the instant association, on May 10, 2010, E drafted a factual confirmation (Evidence B Nos. 7 and 8) as follows.

(A) The following facts are omitted:

9) On November 23, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with D Attorney-at-law and office directorCC in Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office for the crime of forging private documents. However, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office rendered an accusation against them on April 11, 201. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the prosecution and an application for adjudication, but all dismissed.

10) According to the result of the appraiser KimF’s appraisal of the instant agreement, unlike the result of the appraiser KimF’s personal request (Evidence 2) by the Plaintiff, the author expressed his opinion to the effect that “The above seal is likely to be the same (However, since it is a copy other than the original, it is necessary to make an appraisal by the original copy)” as a result of comparison of the deceased’s personal seal on April 12, 2006 agreement between the instant association and the deceased, and the deceased’s personal seal impression on the deceased’s personal seal impression.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6; Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 11; Eul's testimony; appraiser KimF's appraisal result; the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether the deceased received the key amount

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the purport of the above facts and the entire pleadings, it is confirmed that the deceased prepared a key agreement while receiving 000 won from the CCTV around April 12, 2006, and the statement on the evidence Nos. 2 through 6 alone is insufficient to reverse the above recognition, and there is no counter-proof otherwise. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① Based on the result of the appraisal of the above seal imprint, in view of the fact that the seal imprint of the deceased who affixed a seal on the key issue agreement is identical between different agreements (No. 1) or the seal imprint on the certificate of the personal seal imprint, the key issue agreement is presumed to be a document prepared by the deceased. After that, if the litigation case between the deceased and the instant association was terminated by the agreement, the deceased may be recognized to have received KRW 00 won in cash from theCC in accordance with the key issue agreement.

② The Plaintiff asserts that the instant agreement is a forged document for embezzlement of KRW 00,000, based on the fact that there is a clerical error in the name of the deceased stated in the issues agreement, thatCC prepared 00 won in cash instead of the money received from the association, that there was no receipt from the deceased, and that there was no financial transaction related to the above KRW 00,000, and that there was a statement that the deceased received KRW 00,000 from the association at the time of the police investigation in 2008 (see evidence 3 and 4). However, it is difficult forCC to accept the pertinent agreement at its own expense for the purpose of embezzlement of KRW 00,00,000, which is difficult to receive as 0,000 from the deceased’s public prosecutor’s office and the court’s request for adjudication. (1) It is difficult forCC to accept the amount of 00,000,000,000 won, which is still an issue that is difficult to receive from the deceased’s association.

③ From February 9, 2006, when the instant union made a request for a loan to the contractor, it appears that the compensation for the Deceased was almost KRW 000,000. However, according to the OE’s statement, until April 2006, it appears that there was an opposing opinion on the method of payment betweenCC and the Deceased, who is the representative of the instant union, and the Deceased, until April 2006. Ultimately, instead of partially accepting the method of payment of money required by the Deceased, it is highly likely thatCC received KRW 00 from 00 to 00 which the Deceased would have been made by compromise.

2) Whether imports of the issue amount constitute business income

The amount of compensation paid by a business operator due to the expropriation or transfer of a business place in relation to the business, shall be deemed capital gains if its contents are compensation for any assets, etc. subject to capital gains tax, and in cases where compensation is paid to compensate for any income or loss, etc. that is reduced in connection with the business concerned, such as compensation for other assets losses, business compensation, suspension, closure compensation, transfer compensation, etc., such as compensation for business, it shall be deemed as business income in accordance with the mode of business (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du9535, Jan. 31, 2008). In accordance with the above legal principle, it is clear that the amount of land transfer among the 000 won received by the deceased constitutes capital gains, while the amount of compensation for losses that has not been operated due to the destruction of a building constitutes business income.

The issue is whether the issue in question is the business income or other income, or is compensated for the actual loss of the deceased, and thus cannot be seen as income subject to taxation listed in the Income Tax Act. First, since the part of the agreement in question excluding the part concerning the transfer of the real estate in accordance with the agreement has the nature of the agreement on the tort of the association of this case, it is difficult to view other income under Article 21 (1) 10 of the Income Tax Act and Article 41 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19890 of Feb. 28, 2007; hereinafter the same) because it does not constitute "compensation for breach or termination of the agreement on property rights" as it does not constitute "compensation for damages caused by breach or termination of the agreement on property rights" as it does not constitute "other property rights of the deceased" under Article 21 (1) 10 of the Income Tax Act and Article 41 (2) of the same Enforcement Decree of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da32000 of the issue of mental loss of this case).

3. Conclusion

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