2. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 000 of the global income tax for the year 2007 against the Plaintiff on March 14, 201 is revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The following facts are recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 13, and Eul evidence No. 1 to 6.

[1]

On May 11, 2007, the Defendant imposed the global income tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on the ground of interest income attributed to the year 1999 and imposed the global income tax of KRW 000 on the ground of interest income belonging to the year 200 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

The plaintiff filed an objection with the defendant on August 8, 2007 against the initial disposition of this case, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 28, 2008.

The Tax Tribunal rendered a decision on December 27, 2010 on the O request for adjudgment. The decision was made after the expiration of the exclusion period for imposition of global income tax for the year 199 from the original disposition of this case. Thus, the disposition of imposition of global income tax for the year 200 from the original disposition of this case was revoked. The disposition of imposition of global income tax for the year 200 from the original disposition of this case was made by the Plaintiff as other income, and the amount which the Plaintiff received in excess of the principal and interest of the claim of the largest AA from the original disposition of this case was made as other income. The period of attribution was made in 204 and 207 after

[2]

After the above decision of the U.S. Tax Tribunal, on March 14, 201, the defendant imposed a tax of KRW 000 on the plaintiff on the ground of other income attributed to the plaintiff in 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the above disposition").

O Plaintiff received a tax payment notice of the instant disposition on March 24, 2011, and filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition on May 20, 2011.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's assertion

The initial disposition of this case is imposition of global income tax on the ground of interest income belonging to the year 199 and imposition of global income tax on the ground of interest income belonging to the year 2000, and the disposition of this case is imposition of global income tax on the ground of other income belonging to the year 2007. As such, the initial disposition of this case and the disposition of this case are separate dispositions. However, the Plaintiff filed a request for judgment on the initial disposition of this case, and filed the lawsuit of this case without going through the previous trial procedure. Accordingly, the lawsuit of this case

(b) Fact of recognition;

According to the above evidence, the following facts are acknowledged.

[1]

C. On May 11, 2007, the Defendant imposed global income tax on the Plaintiff on May 11, 2007 and imposed global income tax on the Plaintiff on the ground of interest income attributed to year 199 and imposed global income tax on the Plaintiff for interest income belonging to year 2000.

O The reason for the original disposition was as follows.

• On September 12, 1997, the maximumA agreed to pay 000 won to the Plaintiff by October 30, 1997, and if the payment is not made, the interest rate of 21% per annum from the above date to September 12, 1999 shall be paid, and if the payment is not made by September 12, 1999, the LA shall transfer to the Plaintiff the claim for the "OO Ownership Protection Committee" (hereinafter referred to as the "instant claim"). The interest rate of 000 won per annum from October 30, 1997 to September 12, 1999 for the above principal amount shall be the interest income accrued to the Plaintiff in 199.

• Meanwhile, the LA agreed on September 12, 1997 to pay 000 won to GaB by October 30, 1997, but if the LA fails to pay it, 21% interest per annum from the above date shall be paid and if it is not paid by September 12, 1999, the LA decided to transfer the issue claim to GaB.

• It constitutes a quasi-loan agreement to allow the Plaintiff and ParkB to transfer the key claim of this case to the Plaintiff and ParkB as above.

• On July 24, 2000, the LA transferred the instant key claim to the Plaintiff and ParkB, which is the principal amount of KRW 000 and interest KRW 000 per annum from September 24, 1997 to July 24, 200 and the total amount of KRW 000 per annum.

• Of the principal and interest of the instant disputed claim 000 won, the Plaintiff’s share is 000 won (40.32%) equivalent to the principal and interest of the Plaintiff and ParkB’s claim against the leastA. In this amount, the Plaintiff’s interest income accrued in 2000 if the Plaintiff deducts the principal and interest of KRW 000 and interest of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff’s claim against the leastA, which is the interest income accrued in 200.

[2]

The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 28, 2008 on the initial disposition of this case.

The plaintiff argued in the above appeal as follows.

• The imposition of global income tax for the year 199 out of the initial disposition of this case was made after the expiration of the exclusion period of imposition.

• On September 12, 1997, the LA agreed to transfer the instant disputed claim to the Plaintiff and LBB to the Plaintiff on September 12, 1997, the LA intended to repay the original obligation to the Plaintiff and LBB. Accordingly, the LA transferred the instant key claim to the Plaintiff and LBB on July 24, 200, and the Plaintiff and LBB received money from the building purchaser or paid dividends at the time of compulsory sale by auction, which is not subject to income tax.

[3]

On December 27, 2010, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision on the O's request for adjudgment. The reasons for the decision was as follows.

• The imposition of global income tax for the year 199 among the initial disposition of this case was made after the lapse of five years of exclusion period of imposition.

• It is reasonable to view that the bestA made a promise to transfer the disputed claim to the Plaintiff and ParkB on September 12, 1997 to the obligor for payment in substitutes for the performance of the original obligation with the consent of the obligee to make another payment in lieu of the performance of the original obligation, and it is not a quasi-loan contract.

• The Plaintiff and ParkB received KRW 000 from the building buyer on March 30, 2004 based on the instant key claim, and on June 14, 2007, the distribution schedule of the compulsory auction procedure based on the instant key claim was determined and paid KRW 000,000. Of each of the above amounts, the Plaintiff’s share amount is the Plaintiff’s other income, and the time when the other income accrued is 204 and 2007.

[4]

After the O's decision, on March 14, 201, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition, which is a disposition imposing global income tax, on the Plaintiff on the ground of other income attributed to the year 2007.

O The reasons for the instant disposition were as follows.

• On July 24, 200, LA transferred 000 won to the Plaintiff and LBB the total amount of principal and interest of the instant disputed claims. At the time, the Plaintiff and LB agreed to retain each of the instant disputed claims based on KRW 000 of the principal and interest of the claim against LA and KRW 000,000, and KRW 50/224, and ParkB’s 174/224, respectively.

• The Plaintiff and ParkB received 000 won from the building buyer on March 30, 2004 based on the instant key claim. Of them, the Plaintiff’s share amount is KRW 000 5) and this is less than KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000 for the Plaintiff’s claim against the leastA.

• On June 14, 2007, the Plaintiff and ParkB received dividends of KRW 000,000 after the distribution schedule of the procedure for compulsory auction based on the disputed claim of this case became final and conclusive on June 14, 2007. Of these, the Plaintiff’s share amount is KRW 000 and KRW 000,000 is deducted from this amount. Such KRW 00 is the other income attributed to the Plaintiff in 2007.

(c) Procedures of the previous trial;

In the tax administration, two or more administrative dispositions for the same purpose were taken in the course of step-by-step and development, and are related to each other, and the tax authority has changed the taxation disposition subject to such disposition while in the course of a tax litigation and the reason for illegality is common, or where several persons are jointly liable for the same administrative disposition due to the same administrative disposition, one of the persons liable for tax payment has granted an opportunity to re-determine the basic facts and legal issues, such as prior disposition or when one of the persons liable for tax payment has gone through legitimate pre-trial procedure, and if there is a justifiable reason, it should be deemed that the person liable for tax payment can file an administrative lawsuit claiming the revocation of the taxation disposition even without going through the pre-trial procedure (Supreme Court Decision 2007Du25817 Decided May 28, 2009).

D. The lawsuit of this case

Based on the above facts and the plaintiff's assertion, we examine the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case as follows.

(1) The initial disposition of this case: (a) the transfer of the instant key claim to the Plaintiff and ParkB on September 12, 1997 constitutes a quasi-loan agreement; and (b) as the △△ transferred the instant key claim to the Plaintiff and ParkB on July 24, 2000, the interest income was generated from the Plaintiff; and (c) the time when the interest income was reverted was determined to be 199 and 2000.

(2) The Plaintiff filed a request for a judgment with the Tax Tribunal on the initial disposition of this case, and filed a request for a judgment with the Tax Tribunal on September 12, 1997 by the △△△ to transfer the instant key claim to the Plaintiff and ParkB. The △△△ transferred the instant key claim to the Plaintiff and ParkB on July 24, 200, and the △△△ transferred the instant key claim to the Plaintiff and ParkB on July 24, 200, and the Plaintiff and ParkB received money from the building buyer or the dividend payment during the compulsory auction procedure. Accordingly, the △△△△ alleged that it is not subject to income tax as profit from the sale of claims or the redemption of claims.

(3) With respect to this, it is reasonable for the Tax Tribunal to deem that △△△ to transfer the instant key claim to the Plaintiff and ParkB on September 12, 1997 to have promised payment in kind. Accordingly, △△ to transfer the instant key claim to the Plaintiff and ParkB on July 24, 2000. The Plaintiff and ParkB received money from the purchaser of the instant key claim on March 30, 2004, and the dividend was paid on June 14, 2007, on the grounds that the distribution schedule of the compulsory auction procedure based on the instant key claim became final and conclusive on June 14, 2007, and the time when the other income accrued was reverted was determined as 204 and 2007.

(4) The instant disposition: (a) the Plaintiff and ParkB received money from the Plaintiff and ParkB on March 30, 2004 based on the instant disputed claim as the purchaser of the building on March 14, 2007; and (b) received dividends after the distribution schedule of the compulsory auction procedure based on the instant disputed claim became final and conclusive on June 14, 2007; (c) accordingly, the Plaintiff generated other income from the Plaintiff; and (d) the time when such other income accrued was determined to be 2007.

(5) In the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition against the Plaintiff, on the ground of other income, is unlawful since the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant key claim to the Plaintiff and ParkB, contrary to the allegations in the instant appeal.

(6) In full view of the above circumstances, the disposition of this case was conducted in the process of step-by-step and development through the decision of the Tax Tribunal on the initial disposition of this case. The issue at the △△△ process is the legal nature of transferring the claim of this case to the plaintiff and ParkB, whether the plaintiff and ParkB received money from the purchaser of the building or received dividends in the process of compulsory sale or whether it constitutes interest income or other income, and the time when such income is attributed, the disposition of this case is related to the original disposition of this case, and the Tax Tribunal has the opportunity to re-determine the basic factual relations and legal relations, and the reason for illegality alleged by the plaintiff in the lawsuit of this case seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is basically identical to the above issues, and it seems harsh to have caused the plaintiff to undergo the previous trial procedure.

Thus, the plaintiff can file a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of this case without going through the pre-trial procedure. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it did not go through the pre-trial procedure is without merit.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff and defendant's assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff and ParkB transferred the instant key claim to the Plaintiff and ParkB as the repayment of the debt to the Plaintiff and ParkB, which constitutes payment in kind. The Plaintiff and ParkBB received money from the building purchaser and paid dividends in the compulsory auction procedure based on the instant key claim that was transferred by payment in kind. This is not subject to income tax as profit from the sale in claim or profit from the redemption in claim. Therefore, the instant disposition that imposed comprehensive income tax on the Plaintiff on the ground of other income is unlawful.

(2) The defendant's assertion

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff and ParkB transferred the instant key claim to the Plaintiff and ParkB for the guarantee of its obligation to the Plaintiff and ParkB, this does not constitute payment in kind. The Plaintiff and ParkBB received money from the purchaser of the instant key claim based on the instant key claim that was transferred for security as above and received dividends in the process of compulsory sale by official auction. As such, among the money that the Plaintiff and ParkB received from the Plaintiff and ParkB, the part in excess of their principal and interest on the LA’s claim constitutes “the penalty and compensation received due to breach or termination of the contract under which the Income Tax Act provides as other income.” Accordingly, the instant disposition that imposed the comprehensive income tax on the Plaintiff on the ground of other income is lawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts are recognized in each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 11, 15 (including paper numbers):

[1]

On June 23, 1997, LA, the representative director of the OOO, concluded a corporate transfer contract with the "OO Ownership Control Committee" (hereinafter referred to as the "Management Support Committee"), and agreed to transfer the above shares issued by it and its operating rights, etc. to KRW 000,000, the due date was determined as September 23, 1997, and the late payment was determined as 36% per annum (3% per annum).

Pursuant to the O, LA has been holding the principal 000 won and damages for delay at 36% per annum from September 24, 1997 with respect to the Settlement Countermeasure Committee, and such claims are the key claims of this case.

[2]

On June 23, 1997, the date of the conclusion of the above corporation transfer contract, the OPA agreed to pay 000 won to ParkB in a partnership relationship with the operation of OO corporation by September 23, 1997.

The OPA agreed to pay 00 won, which settled the damages incurred by the auction and the existing loans due to the business relationship, to the ParkB on September 12, 1997, by October 30, 1997. If the OPA fails to pay it, 21% interest rate per annum from the above date shall be paid, and if it is not paid by September 12, 1999, the issue claim of this case shall be transferred.

O. On the other hand, on September 6, 1996, the date of the conclusion of the above corporate transfer contract, the Plaintiff divorced with the MaximumA on September 6, 1996, and on September 12, 1997, the MaximumA agreed that the Plaintiff shall pay 000 won, including the educational expenses for children, which settled the amount of divorce agreement and the existing loans, by October 30, 1997. If the Plaintiff fails to pay it, 21% interest rate per annum from the above date, and if it is not paid by September 12, 1999, the Plaintiff decided to transfer the issue claim of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant dispute agreement”).

Pursuant to O, LA was liable by LA to the Plaintiff and LB on September 12, 1997 for the delay damages of 21% per annum from October 30, 1997 and from October 30, 1997 (hereinafter “LA’s obligation”).

[3]

OOn the other hand, on April 30, 1999, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of the Management Support Committee, which is the debtor of the disputed Claim, with respect to the land XX 1005-21, Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

On May 13, 1999, the OPA received the decision of provisional seizure of the above land with the claim of this case as the preserved right (Seoul District Court 99Kadan15206), and on May 15, 1999, the provisional seizure registration was completed.

Around 200, the UPA applied for a payment order based on the key claim of this case, and on May 19, 200, the Settlement Countermeasure Committee received an order to pay the MaximumA to pay 00 won and 36% delay damages per annum from September 24, 1997 to the full payment order (Seoul District Court Branch Branch of Seoul District Court No. 2000 tea42677), and this payment order was finalized on June 200.

As of September 12, 199, the OPA failed to perform the original obligation of this case. On July 24, 2000, according to the instant key issues agreement, the Plaintiff and ParkB transferred the instant key claim, the payment order of which was finalized as above, to the Plaintiff and ParkB, and notified the fact that the claim was transferred to the Rehabilitation Policy Committee, the debtor of the instant key claim, on the same day.

O Plaintiff and ParkB agreed to hold 50/224 and 174/224/10 each of the claims of this case transferred by LA on July 24, 200, based on their respective claims amount, the Plaintiff and ParkB agreed to hold 50/224 and 174/24/10.

[4]

After OB, the Plaintiff and ParkB were granted an execution clause to succeed to the above payment order on July 29, 2000, and applied for a compulsory auction on July 31, 2000 for the above-mentioned claim on July 31, 200, and on September 5, 2002, a distribution schedule was prepared in which the Plaintiff and ParkB jointly distribute 00 won to the Plaintiff and ParkB during the above compulsory auction.

On October 30, 2003, KimCC filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution table (Seoul Southern District Court 2002Gahap10715), and on October 30, 2003, this judgment became final and conclusive on June 14, 2007 through appeal and appeal.

On January 7, 2008, the Plaintiff received KRW 000 out of the total of the above dividends and interest thereon, and ParkB received KRW 1,306,519,192.

[5]

O. On the other hand, on April 8, 2001, the rehabilitation support committee, the debtor of the disputed Claim of this case, consulted with SongD on April 8, 2001 (Seoul District Court Branch Branch of Seoul District Court No. 2001No. 32), and 000 won out of the above debts owed by the rehabilitation support committee to the plaintiff and ParkB.

Pursuant to O on February 1, 2002, registration of ownership preservation has been completed in the name of SongD with respect to a building newly constructed on the above land, and registration of ownership transfer has been completed in the name of △△ General Construction Co., Ltd. on the same day, the above company succeeded to the debt succeeded by SongD, and on the same day, the above company completed registration of creation of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of the above building in the name of ParkBB on the same day.

After OB, on March 30, 2004, ParkB received KRW 000 from △ Industrial Co., Ltd., the purchaser of the above building, and the Plaintiff received KRW 000 out of the above amount from Gab.

C. Assignment of key claim of this case

Reviewing the transfer of the instant claim based on the aforementioned facts and the evidence revealed earlier is as follows.

(1) On September 12, 1997, LA was liable to the Plaintiff and LB for the instant original obligation. At the time, LA agreed to pay the principal to the Plaintiff and LB by October 30, 1997, and if the Plaintiff and LB were not paid the principal, the Plaintiff would pay 21% of the interest per annum from the above date to 21% of the interest rate, and if it was not paid by September 12, 1999, the Plaintiff and LB agreed to transfer the instant key claim held by LAA against LA to LAB.

According to the above agreement, the LA shall compensate for the failure to repay the original obligation of this case as the damages for delay first, but the period of compensation is about two years, and if the original obligation of this case is not performed even after the period of compensation for delay expires, the key claim of this case held by the LAA with respect to the Settlement Support Committee shall be transferred to the Plaintiff and LAB.

In light of the fact that the instant disputed claim is transferred after the lapse of the compensation period for damages for delay of approximately two years, such assignment of claim seems to be difficult to expect more performance of the instant original obligation after the lapse of the compensation period for damages for delay of about two years, and to take other measures identical with or superior to the performance of the instant original obligation.

(2) The instant principal obligation against the Plaintiff and ParkB is the principal amount of KRW 000 and KRW 21% per annum from October 30, 1997. The instant key claim against LA’s Settlement Support Committee is the principal amount of KRW 000 and KRW 36% per annum from September 24, 1997. Thus, the instant key claim at the time of the instant dispute agreement on September 12, 1997, when the principal amount is higher than the instant principal obligation, and the interest rate for delay was higher than the instant principal obligation, and the transfer of the instant key claim at issue has the same effect as the instant principal obligation or has the same effect as that of the instant principal obligation, and according to such assignment of assignment of claims, it is not disadvantageous to the Plaintiff and ParkB even if the Plaintiff and ParkB recognized the extinguishment of the original obligation of this case.

(3) On May 13, 1999, the LA had the key claim of this case as the right to be preserved, and the registration of provisional seizure was completed on May 15, 1999 after receiving the decision of provisional seizure on the land under the name of the debtor of this case and the registration of ownership preservation was completed on May 15, 199. In addition, on May 19, 200, the LA applied for a payment order based on the claim of this case on May 19, 200 by the KA and the KA Committee applied for a payment order on May 19, 200, to the LA to pay 00 won and 36% damages for delay on a yearly basis from September 24, 1997 to June 24, 200.

By September 12, 1999, LA transferred the instant key claim, the payment order of which was finalized on July 24, 2000, to the Plaintiff and LB, as the Plaintiff and LB failed to perform the original obligation of this case against LAB.

Thus, at the time of the transfer of the key claim of this case on July 24, 200, the validity of the key claim of this case was strengthened in accordance with the registration of provisional attachment and the confirmation of payment order. Thus, such assignment of claim of this case has the same effect as the performance of the original obligation of this case, or the meaning of other measures having superior effect is strengthened than the previous one, and even if the plaintiff and ParkB acknowledged the extinction of the original obligation of this case according to such assignment of claim, it shall not be deemed that the plaintiff and ParkB are disadvantageous to the plaintiff and ParkB

(4) On July 24, 200, the Plaintiff and ParkB transferred the instant key claim to the Plaintiff and ParkB on July 24, 2000, and on July 31, 2000, the Plaintiff and ParkB filed an application for a compulsory auction on the land of 1005-21, the registration of ownership preservation of which was completed in the name of the debtor support committee, based on the instant key claim, and the distribution schedule was prepared in which the Plaintiff and ParkB jointly distribute 00 won to the Plaintiff and ParkB during the said compulsory auction procedure.

In addition, on April 8, 2001, the Rehabilitation Policy Committee, the debtor of the disputed Claim, decided to succeed to 00 won out of the above debt that the Rehabilitation Policy Committee owes to the plaintiff and ParkB, and on February 1, 2002, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of SongD with respect to the building newly constructed on the above land, and on the same day, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of SongD and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of △△ General Construction Co., Ltd. on the same day, the above company succeeds to the debt succeeded to the above company. On the same day, the above company completed the registration of ownership creation of 00 won near the maximum debt amount as to the above building in the name of △B, and on March 30, 2004, ParkB received KRW 00 from the purchaser of the above building from △ Industrial Co., Ltd.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff and ParkB had a special liability property to the leastA who bears the original obligation of this case against the Plaintiff and ParkB.

According to the above circumstances, at the time of the transfer of the instant disputed claim on July 24, 200, the key claim of this case was deemed to have been liable property or possibility of recovery compared to the original claim of this case. Thus, the transfer of the instant key claim of this case can have the same effect as the performance of the original claim of this case, or have superior effect, and even if the Plaintiff and ParkBB acknowledged the extinguishment of the original claim of this case according to such transfer of claim, it shall not be deemed that the Plaintiff and ParkB are disadvantageous to the Plaintiff and ParkB.

(5) On the other hand, the original obligation of this case is agreed to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of money calculated by settling this mixture, including the educational expenses for children, etc., with the Plaintiff, and ParkB agreed to pay the money in which the apartment was sold at auction in the partnership business relationship with the operation of the corporation, and such obligation is not the obligation of the maximumA to pay the money individually, and the maximumA is not the obligation of the corporation, the representative director, the director of the corporation.

However, on June 23, 1997 and September 12, 1997, LA issued to the Plaintiff and LBB a promissory note of KRW 000,00,000 under the name of OO in the name of the corporation. In addition, the agreement and the letter of payment stating the contents of the original obligation of this case were prepared in the name of the above corporation (No. 1, 3, 4, 5, and No. 15-1 of A). Meanwhile, LA concluded a corporate transfer agreement with the Probation Committee on June 23, 1997, which was prior to the above date, to transfer KRW 00,00,000 in the name of the corporation and its operation rights.

In such cases, a promissory note, etc. issued by LA to the Plaintiff and LB under the name of OO, which was issued by the Plaintiff and LB, may be liable for the said company and LB, and the LA may be liable for damages to the said company and LB. As such, it seems that the LA was necessary to extinguish the validity of a promissory note, etc. issued under the name of OO by extinguishing the instant original obligation against the Plaintiff and LB.

With respect to the above Promissory Notes, Kim E-E, HuF, a creditor of OO, filed a lawsuit against LA, Plaintiff, and GaB around 2003. The content of the claim was that LA would have caused damage to the Plaintiff and GaB by issuing a promissory note in the name of OO to the Plaintiff and GaB as above. The judgment of dismissal was rendered in the above lawsuit. The reasons for the judgment was that LAB transferred the instant key claim to the Plaintiff and GaB in lieu of the repayment of the original obligation, and that the Plaintiff and GaBB returned the said promissory note to OB and thereby did not cause damage to the said company. This judgment was finalized after appeal (Evidence No. 15-1 of the Evidence No. 15).

In light of the above circumstances, at the time when the LA agreed on the issue of this case on September 12, 1997, but on July 24, 2000, transferred the issue claim of this case to the Plaintiff and LB pursuant to the instant dispute agreement, the LA was required to extinguish the original claim of this case, and accordingly, the LA extinguished the original claim of this case by transferring the claim of this case to the Plaintiff and LB instead of performing the original claim of this case, and thus, the obligation of this case was extinguished by transferring the claim of this case to the Plaintiff and LB in lieu of performing the original claim of this case, the promissory note issued under the name of OO was returned to the company of this case, and the security of the original claim of this case

(6) There is no evidence to deem that the largestA transferred the instant claim to the Plaintiff and ParkB on July 24, 2000, and that the Plaintiff and ParkB had endeavored to repay the instant original obligation, or that the Plaintiff and ParkB demanded the leastA to perform the instant original obligation.

On the other hand, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff and ParkB were to receive dividends in the compulsory auction procedure and received 000 won from the building purchaser, and several lawsuits were filed against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and ParkB. Around February 201, ParkB demanded that the litigation cost of KRW 000 in relation to the above lawsuit was spent at the time of investigation into the Ansan Tax Office, and that this was required to be recognized as necessary expenses for recovery of the claim. The Ansan Tax Office demanded that ParkB be recognized as necessary expenses for recovery of the claim. This was even though ParkB was recognized as having paid the above expenses, even though ParkB was deemed to have paid the said expenses, since ParkB was conducted as joint defendants, it was divided into the number of the Defendant and recognized the necessary expenses of ParkB as KRW 00 (Evidence No. 6) (Evidence 6).

According to the above circumstances, the Plaintiff and ParkB seems to have made efforts to recover the claim of this case at their own responsibilities and expenses, without considering the original obligation of this case, after the Plaintiff and ParkB transferred the claim of this case to the Plaintiff and ParkB.

(7) On September 12, 1997, the Tax Tribunal determined that it is reasonable to regard the instant dispute agreement as a promise to accord payment, which has the same effect as payment, by giving other benefits in lieu of performing the original obligation (Evidence A(1)).

Around February 201, 201, the Ansan Tax Office investigated ParkB on the instant claim, and then, after the Plaintiff and ParkB acquired the instant claim, freely disposed of the instant claim without the consent or permission of the largestA. According to the decision of the Tax Tribunal, the reason for acquiring the instant claim was that the Plaintiff and ParkB fully acquired the instant claim’s ownership (Evidence 6).

According to the above circumstances, the tax authorities did not determine that the instant claim was transferred to the Plaintiff and ParkB for the guarantee of the existing obligation.

(8) In light of the above, the LA transferred the instant key claim to the Plaintiff and ParkB in lieu of the performance of the original obligation of this case, which was borne by the Plaintiff and ParkB on July 24, 2000, and accordingly, it is recognized that the original obligation of this case was extinguished by payment in kind on July 24, 200.

D. Disposition of this case

(1) As seen earlier, the instant disposition was based on other income attributed to year 2007, and Article 21(1) of the Income Tax Act (amended by December 31, 2007; hereinafter the same) provides that “other income shall include income other than interest income, dividend income, real estate rental income, business income, wage and salary income, pension income, retirement income, and capital gains, as follows.” As such, Article 21(1) of the Income Tax Act provides that “the penalty and compensation received due to a breach or termination of a contract” as stipulated in subparagraph 10 of the △△△△, “The penalty and compensation

Article 41(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 208, Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter the same) provides that "the penalty for breach or termination of a contract on the property right" referred to in Article 21(1)10 of the Income Tax Act refers to the value of money or other goods to compensate the damages exceeding the damages to the payment itself which forms the original content of the contract, regardless of the title thereof, as compensation for breach or termination of a contract on the property right. In this case, if the value of money, etc. returned due to the breach or termination of a contract does not exceed the total amount paid initially under the contract, the payment itself does not constitute the value of money, etc.

(2) Damages for delay arising from the delay of the performance of an obligation are not damages to the payment itself, which is the content of the original contract, and it is not different from the monetary obligation. Thus, damages for delay arising from the delay of the performance of an obligation constitutes 'a penalty or damages received due to the breach or termination of a contract' under the Income Tax Act, which constitutes 'a penalty or damages received due to the breach or termination of a contract' (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu7406, March 28, 1997).

(3) However, according to the above, as to the plaintiff on September 12, 1997 and ParkB.

As the original obligation of this case, which is a monetary obligation, was born but failed to perform it, the instant key claim was transferred to the Plaintiff and ParkB in lieu of performing the original obligation of this case on July 24, 2000 according to the instant issues agreement. Accordingly, it is recognized that the original obligation of this case was extinguished by payment in kind on July 24, 200.

If so, at the time of July 24, 200, the part of the value of the key claim of this case, which exceeds the principal and interest of the original obligation of this case, may be other income, and thus, the Plaintiff and ParkB may be imposed on the Plaintiff and ParkB on the grounds of other income for the 2000-year period. Even if the Plaintiff and ParkB were able to receive money from the building purchaser on March 30, 2004 or dividends pursuant to the confirmation of the distribution schedule of the procedure for compulsory auction on June 14, 2007, even if the Plaintiff and ParkB received money from the building purchaser on March 30, 2004 or received dividends on the basis of the distribution schedule of the procedure for compulsory auction on June 14, 2007, this does not mean that the Plaintiff and ParkB received the principal of the key claim of this case as payment in kind, and it does not constitute 'the penalty and damages paid in consultation with the termination or termination of the contract'.

(4) Therefore, the instant disposition imposing a comprehensive income tax on the Plaintiff on the ground of other income attributed to year 2007 is deemed unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case will be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the grounds of its conclusion, it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling the judgment of the court of first instance and accepting the plaintiff