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

In 194, the Plaintiff, while engaging in the business of manufacturing and selling non-party B and the salary syke-gu around 1994, established and run a business in Hong Kong (HK), Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ Hong Kong corporation”) in Korea, and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “non-party corporation”) in Korea, was paid KRW 89,065,539, and KRW 452,689,594, respectively, in liquidation of the business in division B.

The Defendant received 128,109,594 out of the above amount received by the Plaintiff in 2007 shall be deemed to be a dividend following the liquidation of the Hong Kong corporations, and the remainder shall be deemed to be an honorarium and imposed the same disposition as the purport of the claim on March 7, 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On April 21, 201, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the National Tax Service on April 21, 201, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision to dismiss the request on December 30, 201.

【The ground for recognition” did not have any dispute, Gap's 3 (including each number), 4, Eul's 1, and the purport of the entire argument as to the validity of the disposition of this case as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate, the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case is legitimate. The plaintiff's design and pattern of the salary-proof devices developed by the plaintiff after the liquidation of the partnership relationship with Eul is paid money for the use of B's customers and for sharing B's design and pattern after the liquidation of partnership relationship.

Therefore, this constitutes “money and valuables received in return for the transfer or lease of assets or rights similar to industrial property rights” under Article 21(1)7 of the Income Tax Act. Although necessary expenses of 80% should be deducted pursuant to Article 37 subparag. 2 of the same Act and Article 87 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the instant disposition taken without deducting necessary expenses by deeming it as a honorarium under Article 21(1)17 of the Income Tax Act is unlawful.

It is as stated in the relevant statutes.

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff, who is a designer of the salary system, was engaged in the salary system business around 1994.