시행사가 원고들에게 지급한 금전은 소득세법상 사례금으로 보는 것이 타당함[국승]
Incheon District Court 2010Guu1259 (No. 26 May 201)
Early High Court Decision 2009J3587 ( December 17, 2009)
It is reasonable to regard the money paid to the plaintiffs as an honorarium under the Income Tax Act.
The execution company's payment of money to the plaintiffs is to reduce or prevent losses suffered by the executor due to the delay in reconstruction construction, and it is not sufficient to recognize that it is the purchase price of real estate as evidence submitted by the plaintiff.
2011Nu20156 global income and revocation of disposition
Maximum XX 2 others
The Director of Incheon Tax Office
Incheon District Court Decision 2010Guhap1259 Decided May 26, 2011
June 13, 2012
August 22, 2012
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The imposition of global income tax of 000 won on July 9, 2009, which was made by the director of the tax office of Incheon to Plaintiff LA on July 9, 2009, and the imposition of global income tax of 000 won on January 8, 2009, which was made to Plaintiff LB on January 8, 2009, and the imposition of 000 won on global income tax of 2007, which was made by the director of the tax office to Plaintiff HongCC on April 1, 2009, shall be revoked.
1. For the adjudication of the first instance;
The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows. The second instance court's judgment is to add the judgment on the plaintiffs' arguments in the following, and the second instance court's judgment is identical to the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment. Thus, the part is presented in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
< The part to be used in case of :
The "Income Tax Act" in 03 is regarded as the "former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8524 of July 19, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply)".
From 04th to 12th is as follows:
B. Relevant statutes
/ The former Income Tax Act
Article 4 (Classification of Income)
(1) Income of a resident shall be classified as follows:
1. Global income:
Aggregate of interest income, dividend income, real estate rental income, business income, employment income and other income accruing in the current year;
Article 21 (Other Incomes)
(1) Other incomes shall include interest income, dividend income, real estate rental income, business income, labor income, annuity income, retirement income and capital gains, as follows:
17. "Honorary honorarium";
06The following shall be added up to 6th:
[8] (8) According to the terms and conditions of the construction contract for the reconstruction project concluded on April 2005 between the reconstruction association and the government-invested association, the government-invested association decided to lend to the reconstruction association the cost necessary for the promotion of the project, such as design service cost, removal and disposal cost, and the cost necessary for the operation of the reconstruction association, such as the service cost of the specialized entity in the rearrangement project, and the cost for the operation of the reconstruction association by up to six months after the date of designation of occupancy, and the association members decided to lend part of the relocation expenses to the association
On January 17, 2006, the O-public official delayed the obligation of the reconstruction association to move and remove obstacles as stipulated in the construction contract, and thus the recovery of the project cost and moving expenses invested by the O-public official is long-term and enormous impediment to the progress of the project. Therefore, the documents sent out that the overdue interest is to be claimed for the period corresponding to the delay of moving and obstacles.
06 7th (based on recognition) add "No. 44" to the column. The "Income Tax Act that reduces the 9th (07th) as the "former Income Tax Act".
2. The plaintiffs' assertion and its determination
A. The plaintiffs' assertion
In this Court, the plaintiffs asserts that the money of this case should be deemed as part of the purchase price of the real estate of this case in light of the fact that it was paid on behalf of the reconstruction association after the Association and after the settlement of the money of this case, and that the money of this case was paid on behalf of the reconstruction association.
B. Determination
Since the purchase party of the apartment of this case from the plaintiffs is a reconstruction association, it is not obliged to pay the purchase price of the real estate of this case to the plaintiffs. O public office is to reduce or prevent losses incurred by O public office, a executing company, as the reconstruction project delayed payment of the instant money to the plaintiffs. There is no evidence that O public office paid the instant money to the plaintiffs, and it was claimed to the reconstruction association after the payment to the plaintiffs. Therefore, it is reasonable to regard the instant money as a "reward" under Article 21 (1) 17 of the former Income Tax Act.
On the other hand, it is insufficient to recognize that the instant money was the sales price of the instant real estate even if the Plaintiff added up the statement in Gap evidence No. 52, which was additionally submitted by the court.
The plaintiffs' assertion cannot be accepted.
3. Conclusion
The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiffs shall not accept all appeals filed by them.