1. As to the cost of expendable goods, insurance premium, vehicle purchase cost, outsourcing cost, advertising cost, appraisal cost, introduction cost, miscellaneous cost, etc.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning after compiling the relevant employment evidence, and determined that among the expenses that the plaintiff claimed to be additionally deducted as necessary expenses, the expenses of ① 454,577 won, ② insurance premium 3,080,240 won, ③ vehicle purchase cost of KRW 12,474,640, ④ 18,228,990, ⑤ advertising cost of KRW 13,000, 600, 600, 60,790, 7 introduction cost of KRW 4,790,790, 4,235,000, 80, and 60,180,000 won cannot be considered as necessary expenses or other expenses directly related to the acquisition, new construction or transfer of the land and buildings of this case, each of the above expenses does not constitute necessary expenses deducted from the sales price in calculating the profit margin of the land and buildings of this case.

In light of relevant laws and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as to the calculation of global income tax amount, mistake of facts, or misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. As to the interest paid, etc. on the loan from Nonparty 1, etc. 13 and Nonparty 2

A. The plaintiff asserts that among the interest paid on the loan of this case, 1,20,000 won paid to the non-party 1,280,000 won paid to the non-party 3, 2,80,000 won paid to the non-party 4, 720,000 won paid to the non-party 2, 720,000 won paid to the non-party 2, and 9,422,280 won paid to the non-party 2, and interest thereon, 3,297,798 won should also be deducted as necessary expenses. However, on May 2, 200, the defendant deducted it from necessary expenses according to the judgment of the court of first instance that deemed that the above part constituted necessary expenses, and the plaintiff also changed the purport of appeal from the court of first instance, this is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

B. According to Article 82 of the former Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), Article 134(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule"), Article 67 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 505 of May 3, 1995; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule"), where a real estate sales broker has global income other than business income generated from the sale of land or building (hereinafter referred to as "land, etc."), Article 82(2)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act provides for the method of calculating the global income tax [Article 67 subparag. 2(a) of the Act; hereinafter referred to as "tax amount of global income" and Article 82(2)2(2)7 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act].

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in calculating the global income tax amount of the Plaintiff, a real estate sales businessman, the lower court presumed that (i) the Plaintiff’s interest paid for KRW 106,390,000 for the acquisition fund of the instant land and building or for the loan of KRW 271,00,000 used as the acquisition price of the instant land and building or for the new construction cost, and (ii) the interest paid for KRW 1,00,000 used as the loan borrowed from Nonparty 2 for the same purpose, and KRW 51,70,000,000 for the loan of KRW 9,697,600,00 for the payment of the interest paid for the instant construction cost, as well as the fees paid for the transfer of the instant land and building, may not be deducted from the global income tax amount calculated by calculating the global income tax amount as the global income tax amount, and thus, determined that the remaining amount of interest paid for the Plaintiff’s construction cost or the new construction cost of the instant building cannot be deducted from the global income tax amount.

However, in cases where the calculation of global income tax on real estate sales businessman is based on the taxation method of transfer income tax, interest paid on borrowings required for the purchase, manufacture, and construction of land, etc. or other similar expenses shall not be included in necessary expenses in the calculation of transfer income pursuant to Articles 92(1), 45, and 48 subparag. 9 of the Act, but in cases of land purchase pursuant to Articles 141(1)2 and 98(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree, it shall be included in the calculation of transfer income tax on real estate sales businessman until the date when the price is fully paid, and in cases of the manufacture and construction of a building, it shall be included in the calculation of transfer income tax on its original capital until the date when the construction is completed and deducted from the transfer income tax in the calculation of profit margin (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu17519, Apr. 12, 196). In cases where the amount of global income tax on real estate sales businessman is calculated based on the global income tax assessment method, the land and the fixed asset sales amount shall be excluded from the sales amount.

Nevertheless, the court below held that although the calculated global income tax amount of this case against the plaintiff was calculated according to the global income tax method, the remaining interest paid after the full payment date of the land price of this case or after the completion date of the building of this case cannot be deducted from the sales price of the land and building of this case, there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the calculation of global income tax amount of real estate sales businessman

The ground of appeal on this part is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)