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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax for the Plaintiff on June 1, 2012 (OO,OO, OO, and global income tax for the year 2009) is revoked.

A. On March 20, 2001, the Association of OOcc Occ o-O-O-O-O-type land (hereinafter “the land before the instant subdivision”) completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of termination of trust with respect to the land before the instant subdivision.

B. On July 21, 2008, part of the land before the instant partition was divided into O-O-O-O-O-O-O-owned land in Seoul O-dong, and on February 9, 2009, O-O-O-O-O-O-O-owned land in Seoul O-dong (hereinafter referred to as 'O-O-O-O-owned land') respectively. As to O-O-O land in the case of O-O-O-O-owned land, the ownership transfer registration under the name of Seoul Metropolitan Government was completed on the grounds of consultation on each public site on February 10, 2009.

C. After receiving O, O,O,O, andOO from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the purchase price of the land of O-O, the instant subdivision paid KRW O,O,O, andOO to the Plaintiff on October 24, 2008. After receiving KRW O,O,O,O, andO as the purchase price of the land of O-O, it received KRW O, O,O,O, andO. On February 18, 2009, the instant subdivision paid KRW O,O,O, andO, to the Plaintiff on February 18, 2009.

D. On June 1, 2012, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff’s total amount of O,O,O,O, andOO that the Plaintiff received as stated in the instant sub-paragraph (c) as stated in the instant sub-paragraph (hereinafter “the instant disposition”) constituted “other charges for arranging property rights” as stipulated in Article 21(1)16 of the Income Tax Act; and (b) issued a disposition imposing global income tax O,OO,OO, andOO on the Plaintiff for the imposition of global income tax for the year 2008 and global income tax for the year 209 (including each additional tax; hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 6, 3-1 to 3, 4-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's cause of claim

The disposition of this case, which the Plaintiff received from the branch of this case, is unlawful, since it is merely an arrangement fee for the land prior to the subdivision of this case, not an arrangement fee for the land prior to the subdivision of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On December 28, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a delegation contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the instant subdivision with respect to the land, etc. prior to the instant subdivision as follows.

2) On August 6, 1971, the land before the instant subdivision was determined as an urban planning facility (park) by the OOOO of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on August 6, 1971, and was determined as an area to be preserved as a green area according to the building plan of OOO-O-O-public notice of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on December 31, 1996, but the urban planning was not implemented for a long time on May 15, 2008, as the OO-O-O-public notice of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on May 15, 2008.

3) On October 24, 2008, the instant subdivision drafted a provisional payment agreement with the Plaintiff, respectively, in granting each of the following amounts to the Plaintiff: (a)OO,OO, OO, OO, and OO on February 18, 2009.

4) On September 13, 2010, the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan CityOO head notified that the land compensation was completed until December 31, 2010 with respect to the land before the instant subdivision to the instant Religious Association, but the compensation period for the expropriation compensation for the remainder of the land other than O-O, O-O, O-O-O-O whose compensation had already been completed on the land before the instant subdivision was publicly announced. However, on June 2008, the notice was sent to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City O-O, OO-O, O-O-O-O-O-O-O (one square meter per square meter, O-O-O-O).

5) Since the conclusion of the instant contract, the Plaintiff and the instant subdivision continued to have demanded the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the OO-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Association to expropriate the land before subdivision. The instant subdivision filed a lawsuit against Seoul Special Metropolitan City and OOOOOOOO of the Seoul Central District Court claiming the removal of sports facilities, events, etc. installed on the land before subdivision under the Seoul Central District Court’s OOOOOOO of the instant land as part of the instant demand. The instant lawsuit was finalized with the rejection of the instant claim for the subdivision, following the appeal and final appeal, and the Plaintiff took a substantial action on behalf of the said OOO, while the costs of the instant lawsuit related to the said lawsuit were fully borne by the Plaintiff.

6) The Plaintiff proposed to the instant Religious Association the development of marginal profits through land expropriation compensation, the development of high-class loans and sports centers, and the transfer of development rights, as a project plan for the development of the land before the instant subdivision. In relation to the development of the sports center, the Plaintiff established a corporation that was a stock company and OOH golf on May 13, 2009, but the said corporation was deemed dissolved pursuant to Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act on December 4, 2014 without any special activity, and the said corporation did not develop any land before the instant subdivision.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-2-1, 5-1 through 4, Eul evidence 2, 5-1 through 6, 6-1, 2, 7-1, 2, 8-1, 2, 8-2, 9, 10-1 through 3, 11, 12-1, 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the above-mentioned facts and the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff received O,O,O, andOOO members from the above subdivision in return for mediating the instant closure association and the land acquisition agreement between the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the instant land prior to the division. Accordingly, the instant disposition that deemed the said money as other income under the Income Tax Act is lawful.

① Comprehensively taking account of the language and text of the instant contract, the ultimate purpose of the said contract is to sell the instant land prior to the instant subdivision through the land expropriation compensation or through the sports facilities installation project, ensure at least 00 O,O,O, andOO in the purchase price, and to receive 50% of the sales price, excluding taxes, from the purchase price, in return for the performance of delegated duties.

② Under the instant contract, the Plaintiff continuously filed a civil petition with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan City to compensate for the expropriation of the land before the instant partition at the Plaintiff’s expense, and filed a civil lawsuit seeking the removal of the ground facilities before the instant partition.

③ As the appraisal price of the land before the partition on the letter of appraisal prepared around June 2008 was approximately KRW 0,00,000 (O,O,OO x 0,000,000). Accordingly, the instant subdivision is in a position to pay more than KRW 50% of the amount calculated by deducting the relevant taxes to the Plaintiff when the expropriation compensation for the land before the partition is completed under the instant contract. Under the provisional payment agreement prepared by the Plaintiff at the time of payment of KRW 0,00,00,000, KRW 00,000,000,000,000 were agreed to deduct the amount to be paid from the amount to be paid to the Plaintiff after completion of the land compensation for the land before the partition under the instant contract. Accordingly, this is nothing more than the Plaintiff’s payment to the Plaintiff for the conditional sale of the land before the subdivision.

④ The subsidiaries paid to the Plaintiff approximately KRW 50% of the capital gains tax, etc. out of KRW 00,000, out of KRW 00,000, KRW 00,000, KRW 000,000, KRW 000,000, KRW 000,000, KRW 000,000, KRW 00,000, KRW 00,000,000, KRW 00,000, KRW 00,000, KRW 00,000, KRW 00,000, KRW 00,000, KRW 0,000, KRW 0,000, KRW 0,000, KRW 0,000, KRW 0,00, KRW 0,000, KRW 0,00, KRW 0,00, KRW 0,00.

⑤ At the time of payment of the Plaintiff’s KRW O,OO, OO, or OO, the instant subsidiaries did not enter into a specific agreement on the period of payment or the interest rate, and did not receive any personal or physical security from the Plaintiff. In light of the Plaintiff’s financial ability, career, relationship with the instant subsidiaries, etc., such circumstance is a large example compared to the ordinary monetary lending relationship.

④ Whether the Plaintiff was using sports facilities for the installation of the instant land before the instant subdivision upon receipt of the payment of the KRW O,O,O, orO from the instant subdivision is irrelevant to the nature of the said KRW O,O,O, orO.

3. Conclusion

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