use fee (** year) and the amount calculated in proportion to the rate of shares

The fact that the establishment of a commercial building has been completed and the comprehensive income tax for the period from 2000 to 2009 has been paid.

Gap evidence Nos. 5, 14, Eul evidence Nos. 3-8 (including above number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

recognized by the court.

C) Determination

If the above legal principles are applied to the above facts of recognition, the association of this case shall be members of the association.

The method or rate of distribution of profits has been set in relation to the distribution of profits, and accordingly the profit has been distributed.

Therefore, among organizations which are not corporations under Article 13 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, corporations under paragraph (4) of the same Article.

The Plaintiffs, including the Plaintiffs, constitutes an organization that is not a legal entity. Therefore, the Plaintiffs and its members are not legal entities.

Pursuant to Article 43(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act as joint business operators of the instant business, the fee of this case

The obligation to pay income tax shall be borne for the key user fee distributed to each of the parties.

3) Whether the plaintiffs' business income exists

Article 39 (1) and (6) of the Income Tax Act, the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 251, Feb. 21, 2014

Article 51(3)1 of the former Act (amended by Act No. 25193) refers to gross income amount and necessary expenses

The year of affiliation shall be the taxable period in which the total amount of income and necessary expenses are determined, and real estate;

을 임대하고 받은 선세금(先貰金)에 대한 총수입금액은 그 선세금을 계약기간의 월수

The use of this case is defined as "the sum of the amounts distributed to it for each taxable period".

Fees shall be divided in proportion to 30 years, the lease period, and the year to which it belongs shall be determined for each taxable period.

Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to key user fees** year divided as annual business income.

The acquisition is deemed to have been made.

On the other hand, Article 29 of the Basic Agreement (Evidence A No. 5) dated November 1, 1998 (the combination and association of this case)

An officer, notwithstanding paragraphs (5) and (6) of Article 22, shall be transferred from ○○○, ○○, and ○○.

With respect to shares, the total quantity is registered and sold, regardless of the actual form of sale and whether to sell them.

shall be calculated on the basis of the total proceeds from the sale of registered units, if considered as such, and the amount so calculated.

section, including the plaintiffs, shall be paid from the proceeds of sale in preference to the shares of other members.

It is difficult to see that the ratio of shares of the members is substantially changed.

After completion of the commercial building of this case on March 7, 2001, the amount of KRW 195,662,742 on December 31, 2002 shall be 195,662,742.

The comprehensive income tax accrued from 2000 to 2009, before and after deposits in the partnership;

(A) Certificate No. 13-1, No. 14 of the A, which is reported and paid by maintaining the ratio of shares in a certain manner.

- 1~10), ○○ Watersan with the consent of its members, including the plaintiffs, in accordance with the above basic agreement.

From January 23, 1999 to January 31, 200 *,*,**,**** preferentially received dividends from sales revenues.

Even if they were to have been, this basic agreement shall apply to the income accrued to the members, including the plaintiffs.

not only the payment after the payment of the construction cost, etc. as set forth in the note, but also the payment

Considering the due date, the effect of the income amount belonging to the year 2011-2013, which is the taxable period of the disposition of this case

It is clear that the use fee of this case cannot affect the construction cost of the commercial building of this case.

Even if necessary expenses were disbursed for the instant business, the time when such expenses were reverted to the necessary expenses.

Since the commercial building was sold in around 200 and around 200, the issue to be reverted to the year 201 to 2013, the taxable period of the disposition of this case.

No business income equivalent to the pro rata amount of usage fees shall be deemed to exist. [If there is any loss, the Gu lawsuit shall be filed

Pursuant to Article 45(2) of the Acquisition and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9270 of Dec. 26, 2008)

It is possible to receive a carried-over deduction for five years from the time of 2000 when the completion and sale of a commercial building is completed.

[Korean Supreme Court Decision 200

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff Kim ○-○'s claim against the defendant Kim ○, and the plaintiff Lee FB's claim against the defendant FF director is without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.

The part arising between ○○ and Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office shall be borne by ○○.

Cheong-gu Office

1. The global income tax attributed to Defendant ○○○ Head of the tax office on 2017*.*. Plaintiff Kim○-○ in 201.

00,000,000 won (including additional taxes), global income tax of 00,000,000 for the year 2012;

Each disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional taxes) for the year 2013 shall be revoked.

2. Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office’s global income tax on 2017.**. Plaintiff ○○○. global income tax on 2011 reverted to the Plaintiff ○○○.

00,000,000 won (including additional taxes), global income tax of 0,000,000 for the year 2012;

Each imposition of global income tax of KRW 0,000,000 (including additional taxes) for the year 2013 shall be revoked.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff Kim ○ and the Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office is the Plaintiff Kim ○○.

A. The plaintiffs, etc. who were owners of ○○○dong, Seoul**************** (hereinafter referred to as the "land in this case") established the ○○○○-gu, Seoul ** (hereinafter referred to as the "members") on the land in this case with an intention to newly construct a commercial building on the land in this case and to carry on sale in lots and lease business (hereinafter referred to as the "instant business") **.* *.* ○○○○ Development Association (hereinafter referred to as the "instant association").

B. The cooperative of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the commercial building of this case") newly constructed *,*,**,*, ○○○○, composed of 1 store on the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the commercial building of this case")**. *: around 200, the cooperative of this case completed registration of initial ownership under the name of the cooperative of this case**,******, as the land of this case was registered in the names of the plaintiffs, etc.****, the right to use the land of this case for 30 years between the buyer and the purchaser of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the land of this case"), and in return, the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the land use contract of this case") 10, 200, 100, 200, 17, 200, 17, 2000, 10,0000,000,000,000 won or less, including the profits of the plaintiffs 1.

(d) Plaintiff Kim○-○ filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for adjudication on**. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. * even though the Tax Tribunal has filed a request for adjudication with the Tax Tribunal, on 2017 *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. *. (Grounds for recognition) without dispute. * * - -

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

1) Since the Plaintiffs withdrawn from the instant partnership on December 30, 2010, the instant disposition that the Plaintiffs are members of the instant association during the period from 2011 to 2013 is unlawful on the premise that they still are joint business operators of the instant business.

2) Pursuant to the "Basic Agreement entered into on November 1, 1998 by ○○ Product Distribution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "○○ Product Distribution") which is the contractor of the commercial building of this case, the association of this case and the members of the association of this case, including the plaintiffs, ○○○○, and ○○○○○○, the contractor of the commercial building of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "○○ Product Distribution"), the shares of the association members were substantially modified, the beneficial rights to be attributed to ○○○ and ○○, which have been in charge of the sales revenue including the user fees of this case, are transferred, and the beneficial rights to be attributed to ○○○ and ○○, which have been paid in lieu of the loans of ○○ and ○○○, from January 23, 1999 to January 31, 200, the dispositions of this case are unlawful under the premise that the plaintiffs received a preferential dividend of ***** because the business income of the association of this case was not distributeded by the plaintiffs.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) According to the overall purport of the statement and pleading as to whether the plaintiffs withdrawn from the association of this case, the plaintiffs were entitled to imposition of value-added tax on December 26, 2013 only to the association of this case according to the purport of the evidence No. 7-1 and No. 2 (referred to as "the plaintiffs issued by the taxation authority" reported withdrawal from the business of this case on December 30, 2010), and the defendants' evidence No. 7-1 and No. 2 (referred to as "the plaintiffs reported withdrawal from the business of this case to the association of this case on December 30, 2010"), since the association of this case is an independent taxpayer of value-added tax, the members, including the plaintiffs, are not jointly and severally liable for tax payment, Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu000 decided June 12, 2014 (Supreme Court Decision 2014Du000 decided Oct. 15, 2014).

2) Whether the plaintiffs are liable to pay income tax on the key user fee

A) Statutes and legal principles

Article 13 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "any unincorporated association, foundation, or other organization (hereinafter referred to as "organization which is not a corporation") shall not distribute profits to its members, as it is an unregistered association, foundation, or foundation which is established with the permission or authorization of the competent authority or registered with the competent authority pursuant to the Acts and subordinate statutes, or which has basic property contributed for the purpose of public interest," and Article 13 (2) of the same Act provides that "it shall not apply to this Act and other tax-related Acts, as it shall be deemed a corporation." Article 13 (1) of the same Act provides that "any unincorporated association, foundation, or other organization which is not a corporation pursuant to paragraph (1) shall appoint a representative or manager with the provisions concerning its organization and operation, and shall independently own and manage profits and property under its own name, and shall not distribute profits to its members, and shall also be deemed a corporation for which this Act and other tax-related Acts shall

On the other hand, Article 2 (3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11611, Jan. 1, 2013) provides that "any organization other than an organization deemed a corporation under Article 13 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which is not a corporation under Article 13 (4), shall be governed by this Act, considering it as a resident or non-resident." Article 2 (1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Rule of Income Tax (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 323, Feb. 23, 2013) of the former Enforcement Rule of Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance No. 323, Feb. 23, 2013) provides that "any organization, etc. that is selected and appointed as a representative or non-resident but whose method of profit distribution or ratio of profit distribution is not determined shall be deemed as one resident or non-resident, and where profit distribution is actually distributed, it shall be deemed that members of such organization, etc. operate business jointly."

Article 2 (3) of the current Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11611 of Jan. 1, 2013) provides that "an organization other than an organization deemed a corporation under Article 13 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which is not a corporation under Article 13 (4), shall be deemed a resident in cases where its principal office or actual business management place is located in the Republic of Korea, or in other cases, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, this Act shall apply in cases where it is deemed a non-resident, and Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act delegated by the Act provides that "the method of distributing profits or the ratio of distributing profits between the members is determined or it is confirmed that actual profits are distributed among the members of an organization which is not a corporation shall be deemed jointly operated by the members of the relevant organization, and thus, the relevant organization shall be deemed as a resident or non-resident and taxed (Article 13 (2))."

그리고 소득세법 제43조 제1항, 제2항은 공동사업에서 발생한 소득금액은 소득이 발생한 공동사업장별로 계산하되, 공동사업자 간에 약정된 손익분배비율 또는 지분비율에 의하여 분배되었거나 분배될 소득금액에 따라 공동사업자별로 분배하도록 규정하고 있다.

In full view of the contents and purport of the aforementioned relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, in cases where an organization, other than a juristic person, under Article 13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, is not an organization deemed a juristic person under Article 13(4), income tax shall be imposed pursuant to the Income Tax Act; however, in cases where an organization is a non-profit organization that does not distribute profits to its members, such organization shall be deemed one resident who is the taxpayer; and in cases of a profit-making organization that distributes profits to its members, such organization shall not be deemed one person who is the taxpayer, and as prescribed in Article 43(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act, income

B) the facts of recognition

Members, including the Plaintiffs, have their respective shares in respect of the property of the instant association (Plaintiff Kim ○:*.** per cent, Plaintiff Lee ○○○:*** per cent, etc.). The instant association distributed the business revenue of the instant association according to the shares of its members. The instant association did not pay income tax on the instant usage fee, and the association members, including the Plaintiffs, did not return and pay income tax on the instant usage fee.