알선수재금액을 기타소득으로 보아 소득세를 과세한 바 관련 금액의 소외법인의 부가가치세 법인세 납부와 동일취급으로 보기어려움.[국승]
District Court-2015-Gu Joint-1453 (2016.07.19)
After the income tax was imposed by deeming the amount of good offices received as other income, it is difficult to regard the amount of good offices received as the same treatment as the corporate tax paid by the non-party corporation.
It is difficult to see that the income tax has been imposed on the non-party corporation by deeming the amount of good offices received as other income, while paying the corporate tax of the non-party corporation of the relevant amount, it is difficult to regard the collection of illegal income as one that
Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
Seoul High Court 2016Nu6136
South 00
000 director of the tax office
December 28, 2016
on October 16, 2017
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
1. Purport of claim
Defendant’s global income tax for the Plaintiff on November 1, 2014, KRW 94,339,910, 2010, as of November 1, 2008
The imposition of global income tax of KRW 107,334,830 (including two additional taxes) shall be revoked.
2. Purport of appeal
Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Plaintiff ordering revocation shall be revoked. On November 1, 2014, the Defendant revoked the disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 29,591,886 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on November 1, 2010 (the Plaintiff did not appeal against the part dismissed in the judgment of the first instance according to the Defendant’s ex officio revocation and correction of reduction, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the disposition imposing global income tax for the remaining 2010 years after the correction of reduction).
The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed or partly added, and (b) other than adding the judgment on the plaintiff's new argument at the court of first instance, Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are as follows: (c) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of paragraphs (1) and (3) (Articles 4 through 13 and 5 through 6) of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 5 and 7). Thus, the following is added in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In addition, the income from the acquisition of the key amount of this case falls under only one of the taxable objects of global income tax, Grandland, 000, corporate tax and value-added tax, depending on whom the key amount of this case actually belongs to the plaintiff among the plaintiff and Grandland000. Thus, in relation to the acquisition of the key amount of this case, if corporate tax and value-added tax are imposed respectively on the plaintiff as to the acquisition of the key amount of this case, it is necessary to determine whether the disposition of taxation is unlawful or not by considering the substantive relation, and it is not to be invalidated or unlawful for the reason that the disposition of taxation is double taxation at all times regardless of substantive illegality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du5412, Apr. 24, 2001). However, since the key amount of this case actually belongs to the plaintiff, the disposition of this case against the plaintiff is not invalid or unlawful as a double taxation, and the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted in this respect.
0 The "water to be handled" in the 6th page 3 shall be regarded as "it may be deemed that the income has not been ultimately realized."
2. Additional determination
A. The plaintiff's assertion
The Defendant excluded KRW 297 million collected by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff’s global income tax base for the year 2010 and issued a correction for reduction. However, the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office (Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office), on September 5, 2013, received not only KRW 297 million deposited by the Plaintiff with the court with the additional collection charge, but also interest 4,385,835 won, and appropriated it for the additional collection charge. As such, the above interest amount should also be excluded from the Plaintiff’s global income tax base.
The court shall decide on March 13, 2012 that KRW 297 million out of the additional collection charge of KRW 4770 million on March 13, 2012 by the Plaintiff.
The facts of deposit in the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office (Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office) received on September 5, 2013 the above deposit amount of KRW 297 million and interest thereon KRW 4,385,835 from September 5, 2013 and appropriated for the above additional collection charges, in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence No. 16 evidence No. 16.
However, the exclusion of the portion of the confiscation or collection from the global income tax base for the illegal income where the confiscation or collection was made is due to the fact that the possibility of loss of economic benefits inherent in the illegal income is realized and that the income is not ultimately realized (referring to Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Du5514 Decided July 16, 2015). In this case, the Plaintiff’s actual deposit amount with the additional collection charge is limited to KRW 297 million among the amounts received from 00 Es. and 000 Es., Co., Ltd., and the interest 4385,835 won on the above amount is generated at a time interval between the deposit date and the receipt date, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the amount of the above interest accrued by the Plaintiff is not a final realization of the income. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that this part of the above interest amount can not be excluded from the global income tax base.
Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim of this case seeking revocation of the disposition of this case is justifiable, and the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.