2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

가. 원고는 〇〇 〇〇구 〇〇동 457-71 대 169㎡ 및 그 지상 건물(이하 '이 사건 부동산'이라 한다)의 소유자였는데, 2007. 9. 20. ◇◇아파트 재건축정비사업조합 (이하 '재건축조합'이라 한다)에 이 사건 부동산을 양도하면서 재건축조합으로부터 337,495,000원, 위 재건축사업의 시행사인 □□공영 주식회사(이하 '□□공영'이라 한다)로부터 517,668,260원(이하 '이 사건 금원'이라 한다), 합계 855,163,260원을 받았다.

B. On June 1, 2009, the Defendant imposed and notified 79,750,920 won of global income tax in 2007 on the ground that “the instant amount paid to the Plaintiff by △ Public” to the Plaintiff is an honorarium, which is other income under Article 21(1)17 of the Income Tax Act.” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 25, 2010, but dismissed on March 16, 2010, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on June 14, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 15, 16, 16, and Eul 1 (including all of the serial numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff sold the instant real estate to the reconstruction association, while setting the sales amount of KRW 855,157,010, and was aware that all the said money was paid by the reconstruction association at that time.

2) Among them, the instant money paid by △ Public Corporation was paid part of the instant real estate purchase price on behalf of the reconstruction association, and the instant money was part of the instant real estate purchase price. Thus, the instant disposition that the Defendant imposed a comprehensive income tax on deeming the instant money as an honorarium from among other income, not a transfer income tax, is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) 재건축조합은 〇〇지방법원 2004가단102166호(이하 '이 사건 민사소송'이라 한다)로 원고에 대하여 매도청구권을 행사하면서 소유권이전등기절차 이행을 구하는 소를 제기하였다.

2) On February 22, 2007, the reconstruction association deposited 337,495,000 won at the appraisal value of the instant real estate on February 22, 2007, but rejected the Plaintiff’s receipt on the ground that the amount was insufficient.

3) 그런데, 재건축조합은 2007. 8. 28. 조합원인 한AA에 대하여 매도청구권 행사를 이유로 제기한 소유권이전등기청구 소송(〇〇지방법원 2005가단60849)에서 매도청구권을 적법하게 행사하였음을 인정할 증거가 없다는 이유 등으로 청구기각판결을 선고받았다.

4) At the time, △△ Public had already commenced the instant reconstruction work, but was unable to proceed with the reconstruction work due to the instant civil litigation, etc. between the Plaintiff and the reconstruction association, but there was a concern that the reconstruction resolution should be re-scheduled due to the extinguishment of the right to demand sale. The head of Il-gu, one who is an employee of △ Public Office, was the Plaintiff by introducing the Plaintiff on September 2007, but decided to allow the Plaintiff to transfer the ownership of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and the reconstruction association to undertake the reconstruction work, and deliver approximately KRW 410 million to the Plaintiff.

5) Accordingly, on September 19, 2007, 403,781,250 won (=517,668,260 won - 10,353,360 won - 103,53,360 won) remaining after deducting 103,53,360 won of income tax, resident tax, and 10,353,360 won from withholding tax, which was the instant monetary amount from 517,668,260 won (=103,53,650 won - 10,353,360 won) from the Defendant.

6) The reconstruction association withdraws the civil lawsuit of this case on September 20, 2007, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 27, 2007.

7) Afterwards, the Plaintiff received KRW 337,495,000 deposited by the reconstruction association on September 28, 2007.

8) On November 12, 2007, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax with the transfer value of the instant real estate deposited by the reconstruction association to the Defendant as KRW 337,495,000.

d)judgments

1) Article 21(1)17 of the Income Tax Act provides that "an honorarium" shall be limited to one type of other income, and the above "an honorarium" refers not to the money paid for the goods or services itself in connection with administrative affairs or provision of services, but to the money paid for the purpose of a separate case. Whether it falls under this shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the motive and purpose of receiving the relevant money, relationship with the other party, amount, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu20304, Jan. 15, 1999).

2) The following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking into account the above facts and evidence Nos. 4, 5, 10 to 10, the witness testimony and the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., the purchase of the real estate from the Plaintiff is a reconstruction association, and △ Public is not obligated to pay the Plaintiff the price related to the real estate of this case. ② Since the reconstruction project was delayed around September 1, 2007, which is the time of the payment of the money of this case, the △ Public Corporation, the executor of this case had incurred more general management and financial costs than expected, and if the reconstruction resolution again was made, the disposal of the real estate of this case would be more larger than the damages if it was made. ③ The purchase of the real estate of this case was made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff at the time of the sale and purchase of the real estate of this case, DoD, the owner of the adjacent land of this case, the maximumCC, and the purchase and sale of the real estate of this case to the reconstruction association of this case.

3. Conclusion

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