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

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition of imposition by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on September 30, 201 on the global income tax of 2007 shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiff was the representative director of BB industry, which runs the housing construction and sales business, etc. (hereinafter “BB industry”). On January 2007, the Plaintiff was paid OOOO(hereinafter “the instant income”) in order to arrange the sale of three households of DD through CCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CCC”) through DD (hereinafter “DD”).

B. On September 30, 2011, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant income constituted other income under Article 21(1)16 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8825, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the “former Income Tax Act”); and (b) imposed on the Plaintiff a global income tax OO of the global income tax for 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition of imposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination on November 29, 201, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on May 18, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) The Plaintiff, in collaboration with E, provided sales arrangement services for OO-dong Newly constructed PO-dong O-dong, which was implemented by DDD with OE, and the Plaintiff’s sales arrangement fees paid by OOOOO members to E, and the amount paid by OOO members to the Plaintiff to E and reverted to the Plaintiff is merely OO members, but the instant disposition of this case was unlawful on the premise that the entire amount of OOO members was reverted to the Plaintiff.

(2) Since December 1999, the Plaintiff had been engaged in the housing construction and sales business with the trade name of GG industry, HHH, BB industry, and II-DC, and the instant sales intermediation service also was acquired as part of the housing construction and sales business that the Plaintiff had been engaged in from the past. Thus, the instant tax disposition based on the premise that the instant income falls under other income is illegal even though the instant income is deemed business income.

B. Relevant statutes

(1) The former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8825 of Dec. 31, 2007)

Article 21 (Other Incomes) ① Other incomes other than interest income, dividend income, real estate rental income, labor income, annuity income, retirement income, and holiday income shall be as follows:

16. Brokerage commission on a property right;

C. On January 26, 2007, DDD on January 26, 2007 between CCC and DD has been issued a tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as "tax invoice of this case") with the condition that CCC entrusted the sale mediation of OO-dong 130-6 and 3 parcels of land (hereinafter referred to as "the sales mediation service of this case") and OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O.

(3) When the Plaintiff’s introduction entered into a sales contract for new loan 3 bonds, DDR remitted the sum of CCC’s accounts on January 26, 2007, and OCO’s account on January 29, 2007, and around that time, EF paid OCO to EF in cash. On the other hand, EF paid the Plaintiff all of OCOs that received as payment for sales brokerage fees from DD.

(4) The head of Sungdong Tax Office deemed that CCC omitted value-added tax and corporate tax on the instant tax invoice, and notified CCC on January 5, 2009 of the value-added tax OOOOO and OOOOOOOOO for the business year of 2007. CCC dissatisfied with CCC and filed an objection with the head of Sungdong Tax Office on April 4, 2009. The head of Sungdong Tax Office actually provided BB industry, the Plaintiff whose representative director is, provided the instant sales intermediary service. The instant tax invoice was accepted by CCC and revoked both the said value-added tax and corporate tax assessment, and notified the head of the competent tax office on the grounds that CCC received tax invoices on the grounds that BB industry failed to sell, and DD was not true.

(5) On January 2010, the head of the Seocho District Tax Office notified of the above taxation data from the head of the Sungdong Tax Office, and conducted a partial investigation of the value-added tax on DD. As a result of the investigation, the transaction of this case on the instant tax invoice was terminated by deeming DD as a disguised or bona fide party.

(6) On November 201, 2010, the head of the Songpa District Tax Office notified the head of the Sungdong Tax Office of the above taxation data, and conducted a partial investigation of the value-added tax on the BB industry. As a result of the investigation, the subject who actually provided the instant sales brokerage service was not the BB industry but the Plaintiff, the representative director, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data.

(7) Meanwhile, on November 23, 2010, E has prepared and submitted a written confirmation to the director of the Songpa District Tax Office as follows:

EE has introduced, together with the Plaintiff, the OO-Dong O-dong PO-dong loans newly constructed by DD, as well as the applicant for purchase, and confirmed that the Plaintiff received OO-dong loans from the Plaintiff.

(8) On September 30, 2011, the Defendant: (a) notified the head of Songpa District Tax Office of the foregoing taxation data; and (b) deemed that OOOO members received from DD constituted other income under Article 21(1)16 of the former Income Tax Act; and (c) issued the instant disposition against the Plaintiff on September 30, 201.

(9) Meanwhile, on June 28, 2011, the Plaintiff prepared and issued a written confirmation to the Defendant as follows.

On January 2007, the Plaintiff introduced three of the OO-Gu O-dong O-dong O-dong POD units with DD and introduced three of them to purchase them jointly with E, and received OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(l) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s first argument

In light of the fact that: (a) the Plaintiff carried out the instant parcelling-out intermediary service with EE and EF; (b) among the OO members received from DD as a commission for the parcelling-out intermediary service, there is no evidence from the Plaintiff, E and EF that can identify the specific contents of the instant parcelling-out intermediary service, such as the content of duties and the distribution of profits among each of them; and (c) even though the amount the Plaintiff paid to E and EF is a large amount of money, there is no material that can objectively prove it, such as financial material, etc., it is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion; and (d) there is no evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(2) Judgment on the second argument by the Plaintiff

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s offering of property rights is reasonable in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant on June 28, 201, a written confirmation stating that the instant income received from DD constitutes business income or other income; (b) whether the Plaintiff constitutes business income under the Income Tax Act; and (c) whether the Plaintiff continues to provide sales brokerage services in his/her individual qualification in addition to the instant sales brokerage services; and (d) whether there is any evidence supporting that the Plaintiff offered sales brokerage services in addition to the instant sales brokerage services; and (e) whether there is any ground to prove that there was no evidence that the Plaintiff offered sales brokerage services in his/her individual qualification; and (e) the Plaintiff’s offering of property rights is reasonable in full view of the following circumstances:

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition that deemed that the Plaintiff’s OOO member received from DD as the fees for sales mediation constituted other income is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.