A. Until June 15, 2012, the Plaintiff was a member attorney-at-law of law firm B, and thereafter, as an attorney-at-law of the individual law office, appointed a number of individual bankruptcy cases from 2011 to 2013 and performed his/her duties.

B. From 2011 to 2013, the Plaintiff performed the bankruptcy trustee’s business regarding bankruptcy and received a total of KRW 234,147,320 (hereinafter “instant remuneration”). The Plaintiff considered it as other income under Article 21(1)19 of the Income Tax Act and included it in the amount of income for each year of year, and filed a comprehensive income tax return and payment by applying 80% of necessary expenses pursuant to Article 87 subparag. 1(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

C. However, the Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s global income for the year 201 through 2013 on the ground that the instant remuneration constitutes business income, and then notified the Plaintiff of the global income for the year 201 through 2013, respectively, on February 1, 2016 as follows.

(1) The amount of penalty tax to be notified to the trustee in bankruptcy for the year in which the amount of principal tax to be reverted is included (hereinafter “instant disposition”). (A) The amount of penalty tax to be notified to the trustee in bankruptcy for the year in which the amount of principal tax to be reverted is 46,493,960,960,188,763,570,577 (i.e., general under-reported penalty tax 92,341), 1,759,30,500,100 19,386,195, 9,491,955 (i.e., penalty tax to be paid 5,676,277), (ii) additional tax to be notified to the trustee in bankruptcy for the year in which the amount of principal tax to be reverted is 28,878,150, 80,153,60,3625,327, 253,254, 27136,47

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 29, 2016, but was dismissed on May 9, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, Gap evidence 4-1, Gap evidence 5-1, Gap evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of this case’s remuneration is other income under the Income Tax Act.