상가 재건축에 따른 영업손실보상금은 사업소득임[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap683 (2009.08)
Business loss compensation for reconstruction of a commercial building shall be the business income.
If the owner of a commercial building registers it as a trust to the reconstruction association and receives any damage and business loss compensation due to the reconstruction promotion, it shall be deemed as compensation for the loss related to the rental business, and it shall not be deemed as compensation for the decrease in the partitioned ownership shares.
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's imposition of 28,871,580 won of global income tax for the year 2002 against the plaintiff KimA on March 20, 2008 and the imposition of 28,414,040 won of global income tax for the year 2002 against the plaintiff ParkB on June 14, 2008 shall be revoked.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning for this Court's explanation is as follows: (a) add "related Acts and subordinate statutes" at the end of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the attached Form; and (b) refer to the entry of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for further determination as follows; and (c) refer to this case by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article
2. Additional determination
The plaintiffs' amount of issues received from the non-party partnership shall not be considered as business income, and even if the substance of the issue amount is considered as business income, it shall be assessed in proportion to the real estate rental income for three years in consideration of the real estate rental income, even if it is deemed that the real value of the issue amount is regarded as business income, it shall be assessed in proportion to the real estate rental income for three years.
In comparison with the existing commercial buildings, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs received the key amount as compensation or liquidation money for the increase in the size of the store in the size of the building instead of the decrease in the size of 9 square meters. According to the evidence adopted above, the key amount is only recognized as being received as compensation for business losses following the discontinuation of the leasing business. Furthermore, according to Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the former Income Tax Act, the global income is divided into "the sum of interest income, dividend income, real estate rental income, business income, earned income, earned income, temporary property income, pension and other income generated during the pertinent year" and the key amount is "the sum of the business income and real estate rental income." The key amount is that the plaintiffs are not obtained by leasing the existing commercial building to the non-party union, and it is received as a lump sum for the discontinuation of the leasing business on September 19, 2002, and therefore, there is no ground to divide it in a different business year. Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion
3. Conclusion
Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed because they are without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and all of the plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.