2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated in section 2, No. 4, No. 4, and No. 2). Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The substance of the contract for the acquisition of the claim of this case is to accept the contract for the acquisition of the preceding claim of this case concluded between the gold-type and B, and the key money of this case paid by the plaintiff to B as the price for the consent or acceptance of the above acquisition of the contract.

Therefore, the key issues of this case cannot be considered as a honorarium paid in return for the withdrawal of the lawsuit of this case. The defendant's disposition of this case based on this premise is unlawful.

B. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the relevant statutes is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 7 to No. 8). Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

C. 1) Determination 1) Article 21(1)17 of the Income Tax Act provides as one of the other income refers to the money and valuables provided as a means of a case in connection with administrative affairs or provision of services, and whether the money and valuables fall under this case should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the motive and purpose of receiving the pertinent money and the relationship with the other party, amount, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Du3818, Jan. 15, 2015; 97Nu20304, Jan. 15, 1999).

However, the key issue of this case is that the Plaintiff paid in return for the consent of the contract with the actual takeover of the contract.