2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be divided into five parts, and four parts shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant.

The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in view of Gap evidence 1-2, 3, Gap evidence 2-3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2-5, Eul evidence 1-6, Eul evidence 7-1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

A. On April 2, 1998, the Plaintiff entered ○ apartment district development cooperatives (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○ Association”) as 14/24 shares of each of the 772-3 large 1,262.5 square meters and 772-4 large 605 square meters [each share owned by the Plaintiff. Each share owned by the Plaintiff. The area corresponding to each share owned by the Plaintiff is 1,089.6 square meters [1,262.5 square meters + 605 square meters] 1,089.6 square meters [1,262.5 square meters + 605 square meters]. The contract (Evidence 2) entered as 1,089.69 square meters (329.63 square meters; hereinafter referred to as “instant land”; hereinafter referred to as “the contract of this case”) with the Plaintiff’s sales and purchase agreement as 4,367,579,500 square meters.]

(1) Of the purchase price of the instant land, KRW 1,310,279,250 equivalent to 30% out of KRW 4,637,597,50 shall be the down payment, and KRW 3,057,318,250 equivalent to the remaining 70% shall be the remainder.

(2) Of the down payment of KRW 1,310,279,250, 00, 1,000,000 among the down payment of KRW 1,00,00 shall be paid to the Plaintiff as a promissory note with the face value of KRW 1,00,00,000 issued by ○○ Development Co., Ltd., and the remainder of KRW 310,000,000 shall be paid on the outstanding payment date on the outstanding payment date, and with respect to KRW 1,00,000,00 from the date following the contract to the due date of the bill, with respect to KRW 310,00,000 until the due date of the bill, the remainder of the down payment of KRW 310,00,00 shall be paid from the date following the contract to the due date (the same as the due date of payment of KRW 3,057,318,250).

(3) The ○○ Partnership shall pay the remainder of KRW 3,057,318,250 to the Plaintiff within six (6) months from the contract date and shall additionally pay the amount calculated by the ordinary bank loan interest rate during the delayed period (hereinafter “the payment agreement”).

B. Pursuant to the contract deposit and interest payment agreement, ○○○ Cooperatives delivered a promissory note with a face value of KRW 1,002,29,000 issued by ○○ Development Co., Ltd. as part of the contract deposit to the Plaintiff on a contract day, and paid KRW 1,02,126,000 per month interest at the rate of KRW 1.8% per month from the day following the contract on KRW 1,002,29,000 to the due date. The promissory note was appropriated for repayment of KRW 1,02,29,000 per month.

C. On May 12, 1999, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land based on the trust on April 26 of the year following the execution of the instant sales contract.

D. However, during the period from April 2, 1998 to June 25, 2001, the Plaintiff received KRW 4,367,597,000 from ○○ Cooperative for the purchase price of the instant land at KRW 4,367,597,00 (in fact, KRW 4,367,597,500 or KRW 1,000 according to the original and the Defendant’s Calculation Act or KRW 544,828,00,00 in total, or the agreed parties or additional payments.

However, the additional amount of KRW 102,126,00 as stated in paragraph (1) is an agreed interest calculated at the rate of 1.8% per month from the date following the contract for the promissory note amount of KRW 1,002,29,000 as the down payment under the contract for down payment and interest payment agreement, and the additional amount of KRW 2 to 9 is an additional payment calculated at the rate of 1.8% per month from the date following the payment date of each principal of the purchase price of the land of this case pursuant to the payment agreement for the remainder and additional amount of the purchase price for each principal from October 3, 1998 to the date of the payment of principal stated in the principal amount.

section 4(b) of the calendar in the

Net

Date of payment

Amount of principal paid

Additional Payments

Principal Balance

1

April 2, 1998

1,002,299,000 won

102,126,00 won

3,365,298,000 won

2

may 3, 1999

78,720,00 won

21,280,00 won

2,586,578,000 won

3

July 1, 1999

1,139,623,00 won

60,377,00 won

1,446,955,000 won

4

November 10, 1999

287,682,00 won

62,318,00 won

1,159,273,000 won

5

February 25, 2000

359,219,00 won

40,781,00 won

800,054,00 won

6

June 30, 200

467,121,00 won

32,879,00 won

32,933,00 won

7

July 30, 200

4,453,00 won

547,000 won

328,480,00 won

8

March 14, 2001

177,411,00 won

2,589,00 won

151,069,00 won

9

June 25, 2001

151,069,00 won

1,931,00 won

0 won

guidance.

4,367,597,00 won

544,828,00 won

E. The Defendant, around October 13, 2005, included each additional payment column of 200 won in the global income amount of 205.00 won and each additional payment column of 200 won and 300 won and 700 won and 343,380 won and 4780 won and 30780 won and 3070 won and 4780 won and 30780 won and 400 won and 970 won and 500 won and 50 won and 500 won and 209 won and 50 won and 50 won and 500 won and 50 won and 500 won and 50 won and 50 won and 50 won and 50 won and 50 won and 199 won and 20 won and 50 won and 200 won and 343,380 won and 300 won and 400 won and 200 won and 738 won and 7300 won and won and 300 won and .

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is a legitimate disposition based on relevant laws and regulations.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful for the following reasons.

In other words, at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff and the ○○ Partnership agreed to increase the sales price in proportion to the delayed period when the ○○ Partnership delays the payment of the sales price of the instant land, but to follow the rate of increase. Each amount indicated in the column for additional payment on the statement of payment details is only the sales price increased in accordance with the above agreement, and it does not constitute other income as 'the penalty and compensation received due to breach or termination of the contract on property rights' under Article 21 (1) 10 of the Income Tax Act.

(2) Even if the amount in the column for additional payment on the detailed statement of payment does not increase in the purchase price, pursuant to Article 587 of the Civil Act, the purchaser is obligated to pay interest on the purchase price from the date of delivery of the object. As long as the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to ○○ Cooperative before receiving the purchase price of the instant land from the ○○ Cooperative before receiving the purchase price of the instant land, the Plaintiff is entitled to interest on the balance of the purchase price of the instant land from the ○ Cooperative in return for the right to receive the purchase price of the instant land. As such, each amount in the column for additional payment on the detailed statement of payment is the legal negligence of the purchase price of the instant land acquired in return for the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant land to ○○ Cooperative, which constitutes the original content of the contract, and does not constitute other income as “compensation for losses exceeding the contents of the instant contract” under Article 21(1)10 of the Income Tax Act and Article 41(3) of the Enforcement Decree thereof.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case against which each of the items on the additional payment column of the payment record is imposed on the Plaintiff’s global income for the year 198, global income for the year 199, global income for the year 199, and global income for the year 200, on the ground that each of the items on the additional payment column of the payment record constitutes other income under Article 21(1)10 of the Income Tax Act and Article 41(3) of the Enforcement Decree thereof is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 21 (1) 10 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6292 of Dec. 29, 2000; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that penalty or compensation received due to a breach or termination of a contract shall be included in other income which is income other than interest income, dividend income, real estate rental income, business income, earned income, temporary property income, retirement income, transfer income, and forestry income. Article 41 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17032 of Dec. 29, 2000; hereinafter referred to as the "Decree"). Article 21 (1) 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Decree") provides that the compensation received due to a breach or termination of a contract on property right refers to the value of the money or other goods to compensate the damages exceeding the damages to the payment itself which forms the contents of the original contract, regardless of the title thereof.

C. Determination

(1) According to the Plaintiff’s assertion that ○○○○○ Cooperative’s interest on the purchase price for the remaining portion of the purchase price for which the agreement was entered as follows: (i) the Plaintiff agreed to increase the purchase price at a certain rate of time for the initial sale and purchase; and (ii) the Plaintiff’s interest on the remaining portion of the purchase price for which the agreement was entered as at the time of the sale and purchase agreement, regardless of the existence of the change in the value of the land at the time of the agreement and the degree of the change in the value of the land at the time of the agreement; (iii) the Plaintiff’s interest on the remaining portion of the purchase and sale price for which the agreement was entered as at the time of the conclusion of the agreement, which was not entered as at the time of the agreement on the remaining payment of the purchase and sale price; and (iv) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the remaining portion of the purchase and sale price for which the agreement was entered as at the time of the agreement on the remaining payment of the purchase and sale price for the remaining portion of the purchase price was not reasonable and reasonable.

(2) However, according to the above facts, the Plaintiff received part of the down payment from 002,29,000 won at par value as part of the down payment at the time of the instant sales contract and received a promissory note from 1,002,29,000 won at the time of the instant sales contract, and received 102,126,000 won (the amount stated in paragraph (1)) calculated at the rate of 1.8% which is agreed upon from the next day of the contract to the due date until the due date, as advance interest payment of 102,126,00 won (the amount stated in paragraph (1)) at 102,126,00 won, 200 won cannot be viewed as 90, 209,300 won, 29,000 won, 30,000 won, 30,000 won, 9,000 won, 29,000 won or more as damages for delay of payment of the down payment.

(3) Therefore, the part of the instant disposition, which imposes KRW 36,205,520 on the amount as global income tax for the year 1998, considering that the Defendant’s interest 102,126,000 as to the amount of promissory notes was deemed as global income for the year 1998, is unlawful, and the remainder is lawful as a disposition under the relevant laws and regulations (the Plaintiff did not have any other income than KRW 102,126,00 with respect to the amount of promissory notes as income for the year 198).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part imposing KRW 36,205,520 of the disposition of this case on global income tax for the 1998 shall be revoked as unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as all of the grounds are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.