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

The disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional tax) for the year 2010,000,000 that was made against the plaintiff on December 8, 2015 by the former defendant of the Gu office shall be revoked.

가. 원고는 1993. 5. 1.부터 'AAAAA AAAA'라는 상호로 생활용 도자기 등을 판매하는 사업자로, 2008. 3. 15. BBBB 주식회사(이하 'BBBB'이라 한다)와 서울 △△구 ▲▲동 **-1 CCCC 쇼핑몰(이하 '이 사건 쇼핑몰'이라 한다) 내 2층 *동-***호 점포(이하 '이 사건 점포'라 한다)에 관하여 임대차보증금을 0,000만 원, 차임을 월000만 원(부가가치세 별도), 임대차기간을 2008. 3. 15.부터 2010. 12. 31.까지로 하는임대차계약(이하 '이 사건 2008. 3. 15.자 임대차계약'이라 한다)을 체결하였다. 나. 원고는 2008. 12. 2. BBBB과 다시 이 사건 점포에 관하여 임대차보증금을 0,000만 원, 차임을 월 0,000,000원(부가가치세 별도), 임대차기간을 2009. 1. 1.부터 2009. 12. 31.까지로 하는 임대차계약(이하 '이 사건 2008. 12. 2.자 임대차계약'이라 한다)을 체결하였다.다. BBBB이 2009. 10. 19. 원고에게 기간 만료에 따른 임대차계약 해지통고를 하였으나,원고는 2009. 11. 4. BBBB에게 이 사건 점포에 관한 임대차기간이 2010.12. 31.까지임을 통지하는 등 원고와 BBBB 사이에 이 사건 점포의 인도와 관련한 분쟁이 발생하였다. 라. 원고는 2011. 2. 25. BBBB으로부터 *억 0,000만 원(이하 '이 사건 쟁점금액'이라 한다)을 받고 위 분쟁을 종료하기로 합의하였고, 2011. 5. 9. BBBB으로부터 연체차임 및 관리비를 공제한 이 사건 임대차계약의 보증금과 이 사건 쟁점금액 합계 216,094,000원을 수령하였으나, 이 사건 쟁점금액을 소득으로 신고하지 않았다.

E. On December 8, 2015, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of the amount of global income tax of KRW 00,00,000 (including additional tax) for the year 2011 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) as a honorarium under Article 21(1)17 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11146, Jan. 1, 2012; hereinafter the “former Income Tax Act”).

F. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for review with the National Tax Service on March 7, 2016, but was dismissed on June 20, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The term of lease between the Plaintiff and BB relating to the instant store is up to December 31, 2010, which was stipulated in the lease agreement dated March 15, 2008, and the Plaintiff pursuant to the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

BB unilaterally notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the lease agreement upon the expiration of the contract period. 2) The key amount of the instant case falls under the “compensation for breach or termination of the contract” under Article 21(1)10 of the former Income Tax Act, which is paid in relation to the right to lease and the right to lease of the instant store, and it does not fall under the “compensation for transfer of the right to lease or the right to lease” under Article 21(1)17 of the former Income Tax Act, and it does not fall under the “compensation for sales” under Article 21(1)17 of the former Income Tax Act, since the Plaintiff unilaterally notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the lease contract due to the decrease in sales due to the unilateral termination of the lease contract of BB from 2010 to 2013 million won due to the contractual breach of the contract, and the amount of the instant case was paid by the Defendant for more than KRW 60 million due to the actual loss of the Plaintiff’s sales cost or more than KRW 500 million,000,000.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) In the open bid held on February 26, 2008 by BB, the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid as the lessee of the instant store, and entered into a lease agreement as of March 15, 2008, and the terms and conditions of the said special agreement may be adjusted annually. 2) The lease agreement dated December 2, 2008 includes the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate, certificate of seal impression, and resident registration certificate. The Plaintiff prepared and delivered each of the following subparagraphs (hereinafter “each of the instant agreements”) to BB on the same day:

Upon entering into a lease contract with Egyptian, I have sufficiently aware and agreed that the lease contract may be terminated in advance in accordance with the Egyptian policy at the time of the implementation of the construction work for Egyptians, and therefore, I have to waive all kinds of claims, such as investment cost and beneficial cost, premiums, operating losses, etc. against Egyptians during the termination of the contract, and not raise any civil and criminal objection against Egyptians.

3) On October 19, 2009, BB planned to proceed with the instant shopping mall construction due to the deterioration of the shopping mall. Since the instant lease contract is terminated due to the expiration of the period, BB presented a certificate of content demanding the Plaintiff to deliver the instant store by December 31, 2009. However, on November 4, 2009, the Plaintiff sent a reply to BB on December 31, 2010 that the term of the instant store is until December 31, 2010, and that BB’s unilateral termination notice cannot be accepted, between the Plaintiff and BB on the termination of the instant lease agreement and the delivery of the instant store. Since then BB sent a certificate to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff requires the Plaintiff to deliver the instant store over several occasions, BB filed a lawsuit against the lessee of the instant store including the Plaintiff, * Seoul District Court * 2010 (Seoul District Court * * 40).

4) On February 25, 201, during the proceeding of the instant case, BB and 51 store lessees, the following agreements were made between BB and 51 store lessees. On the same day, the Plaintiff also agreed to receive the key amount from BB and to terminate the dispute related to the instant store. BB and the lessee agree to the instant lawsuit and counterclaim relating to the order of the shopping mall as follows. The amount to be paid by BB to lessees under this Agreement is all agreements for the settlement of the dispute between BB and the lessee. 2. The lessee is not entitled to lease, sublease, lease, lease or other disposal of each leased object he rents to a third party without the consent of BB, and it is deemed that the lessee has waived the right to claim the amount stated in paragraph 1.

3. BBBB과 임차인들은 본 합의서를 작성함으로써 BBBB과 임차인들 사이에 임차목적물과관련된 모든 분쟁을 종결하기로 하고 향후 BBBB과 임차인들 사이에 임차목적물과 관련한 어떠한 소송이나 분쟁의 야기, 기타 여하한 민��형사상의 청구 등을 제기하지 않는다.

4.BB or lessee shall not divulge to a third party any confidential information concerning the other party which he has learned in the course of his duties, including the content of this Agreement, and if any breach of this obligation, the party that has committed the breach shall compensate the other party for any damage that the other party suffers.

5. BB and lessee will conduct judicial reconciliation within the proceedings of this case (including counterclaim) with a view to resolving all disputes arising between BB and lessee in accordance with this Agreement, and between BB and lessee.

5) On May 9, 2011, BB paid 216,094,000 won in total and the key amount of the instant lease agreement after deducting overdue rent and management expenses from the Plaintiff, and withdrawn the instant lawsuit against the Plaintiff on June 4, 2011.

6) Since then, the Plaintiff delivered the instant store to BB, and entered into a lease agreement on June 22, 201 with respect to 516, Seoulodong 516*******pp-1*4, E-non1*6, and continued to sell the instant store, such as a schip, etc., in the said store.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 2 through 4, 6, 7 evidence, Eul's 2 to 6 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s sales agreement No. 21(1) of the former Income Tax Act provides that “BB 17 shall be paid to the Plaintiff for the purpose of administrative affairs or provision of services regarding BB, and it is difficult to conclude the lease agreement No. 20 for the purpose of improving BB 1’s sales contract, and that the Plaintiff’s sales agreement No. 20 for the purpose of improving BB 1’s sales contract should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) it is difficult to conclude the lease agreement with the Plaintiff; (b) it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s sales agreement No. 20 for the purpose of improving B B 1’s sales contract no more than 1’s sales contract No. 30; and (c) it is necessary to conclude the lease agreement no more than 1’s sales contract no more than 20,000,000 for the purpose of concluding the lease agreement with the Plaintiff; and (b) the Plaintiff’s sales contract no more than 1’s sales contract No. 20.

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