2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

On April 11, 2014, the date when the Defendant issued the instant disposition against the Plaintiff is April 1, 2014, and it is reasonable to deem that the date when the instant disposition was issued by the Defendant as the date when the notice for tax payment was served on the Plaintiff. As of April 9, 2014, the date when the notice for tax payment was served on the Plaintiff is deemed as April 1, 2014. In addition, it appears that April 9, 2014 stated in the purport of the instant disposition was erroneous.

Division of KRW 308,902,610, the amount of KRW 307,829,500,000 KRW 712,57,6650,000,000 KRW 1,000 KRW 1,50,000 KRW 513,6650,000,000 KRW 51,000,000 KRW 510,000 KRW 510,000,000 KRW 7123,57,829,50,00 for year 2010, and the amount of KRW 39,592,170 for year 2012 shall be revoked, respectively.

A. On October 192, 192, the Plaintiff was a major shareholder and representative director of the www, who established the www Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "www"). From around 2008 to 2012, the Plaintiff transferred 13 points of art works owned by the self-defense (hereinafter referred to as the "art works of this case") in total 5.13,65 million won (hereinafter referred to as the "sale proceeds of this case") to www (hereinafter referred to as the "transaction of this case").

B. qq conducted a tax investigation on www and decided the comprehensive income tax on November 4, 2013 by deeming the sales proceeds of this case as the Plaintiff’s business income for which the pertinent tax return was omitted. On November 4, 2013, the Director of the Regional Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the result of the tax investigation that the global income tax was imposed on the sales proceeds of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the aforementioned global income tax decision and requested the qq to the Director of the Regional Tax Office on December 3, 2013, but the qq commissioner of the Regional Tax Office decided not to adopt the said request on March 6, 2014.

C. Pursuant to the aforementioned pre-assessment review decision, the commissioner of a regional tax office ofqq notified the Defendant of the determination of the amount of tax to correct the comprehensive income tax against the Plaintiff. Accordingly, on April 1, 2014, the Defendant issued a decision of correction to the effect that the Plaintiff would impose the global income tax of KRW 974,794,210 for the total amount of KRW 318,469,930 for the year 2008, KRW 308,902,610 for the year 2009, KRW 307,829,50 for the year 2010, KRW 307,829,50 for the year 2010, KRW 39,592,170 for the year 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal on July 3, 2014, but the Director of the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the said appeal on June 26, 2015. The Plaintiff appealed against this decision, and filed the instant lawsuit on September 22, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 12, and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) In order to constitute a business income subject to taxation of certain income, it is recognized that the Plaintiff continuously and repeatedly created such income for profit-making purposes through the continuous and repeated activities. However, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have engaged in the business activities for profit-making purposes by having www purchase the instant art works previously held by www due to the difficulties in the management of www. The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have engaged in the business activities for profit-making purposes, and the other party was an unspecified number of employees, and the period of possession was acquired for collection other than for sales purposes, and the retail is the premise of repeated purchase. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff purchased the art works for the purpose of sale from around 2008 to around 2012, which is the sales period of the instant art works, to have no fact of purchasing the art works for the purpose of sale.

It cannot be deemed that the sales proceeds of the instant art product do not constitute business income subject to taxation.

2) The tax authorities continuously reserved the exercise of the right to impose taxes on a person’s art transaction, and announced it to the public, thereby establishing a non-taxable practice. This also expressed the public opinion or intent to not impose taxes on an individual’s art transaction. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful in violation of the principle of trust protection.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to the assertion that it does not constitute business income subject to taxation

A) The business income subject to global income tax is income generated from a business, which is a social activity that is continuously and repeatedly conducted in an independent position for profit-making purposes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8430, Sept. 9, 2010); the amount and frequency of the transaction; the mode and the other party, etc., in light of whether the transaction is for profit-making purposes; and whether the transaction continues to be and repeated to the extent that it can be seen as business activities; and the determination should be made in light of social norms; as well as the relevant transaction, the determination should be made by taking into account not only the relevant transaction, but also all the circumstances arising from the time before and after the transaction took place (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du5412, Apr. 24,

B) In light of the above legal principles, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s selling of the instant art products to continuously and repeatedly carry out the business for profit purposes by comprehensively taking into account the health team, the facts as seen earlier, the evidence, the Eul’s statements as well as the evidence Nos. 3 through 6, 8, 10, and 11, and the overall purport of the pleadings as to the instant case. Accordingly, the sales proceeds of this case constitute business income under Article 19(1)7 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter “former Income Tax Act”) and Article 19(1)7 of the Income Tax Act, so the Plaintiff’s above assertion is rejected.

① Since June 1983, the Plaintiff had been engaged in art sales business, and from October 1992, the Plaintiff had been engaged in art sales business.

When establishing www and running the same business, continuing to create business income in www, and thereby, it is considerably clear in the art transaction, and the transaction in this case was continued for about 4 years, and the sales proceeds are considerably high as about 5.1 billion won (if the 2007-year sales without tax exemption period includes the 2007-year sales, the transaction period and the transaction value are increased, the transaction amount shall be increased), etc., it does not seem to be limited to only the transaction in this case in judging the profit-making objective.

② From around 2007 to 2012, the Plaintiff sold 15 points of art, including the instant art, to www in total, KRW 6.8 billion. Although the art works sold over the five-year period are considerably high, in light of the fact that each sold art works are considerably high, and thus, it cannot be easily sold within the short time, it is reasonable to deem the instant transaction to have continuity and repetition of the degree that it can be seen as business activities.

③ The Plaintiff sold the instant art product only to www, not many unspecified persons.

B. However, as seen earlier, whether the sales income falls under the business income under the Income Tax Act shall be determined according to social norms by considering whether the sales income is for profit, the scale and frequency of the sales, and the manner of the sales, etc., and whether the sales income falls under the business income under the Income Tax Act on the ground that the sales counterpart is specified. Thus, even if the sales counterpart becomes an important standard for determining whether the sales partner is unspecified or multiple persons, the sales partner does not constitute the business income under the Income Tax Act on the ground that the sales partner falls under the business income under the Income under the Income Tax Act on the grounds that the sales partner sells the art products to the www on the premise that the sales partner sells the art products to many and unspecified persons, and it is difficult to conclude that the sales counterpart was identified by selling the art products only to the www.

In addition, in the case where the plaintiff sells the art of this case on the www, the plaintiff shall do so.

It seems that there is no need to have a separate human resources or facilities for selling dry art products, and there is a sufficient reason or need to regard www as the sales counterpart, such as the fact that it can account for a favorable position in determining the price or transaction terms.

④ Based on the absence of profit-making purpose, the Plaintiff sold the instant art product for the purpose of providing operational funds to overcome the management crisis of the www. On or around 2008, the financial status and management performance appears to have deteriorated compared to the previous art product around 2007. However, since around 2009, although the capital was reduced compared to the previous one, it is difficult to evaluate that there was management crisis in the www even after around 2009, since the current net income was continuously generated. Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff temporarily used the instant art product as the funds for the operation of the www, even if the Plaintiff had www used it as the funds for the management of the www, the Plaintiff did not gratuitously transfer the instant art product to the www, but instead exempted the obligation to pay the price after the date, the remaining KRW 2.3 billion was collected in the form of a revenue-making bill, etc., and the Plaintiff’s profit-making profit-making profit-making profit-making profit-making profit-making profit-making profit-making profit-making profit-making profit-making, which is difficult.

5. In the transaction of goods, sales are premised on purchase, but they are not so.

Even if it can not be interpreted that the product was purchased within the period of sale, it cannot be interpreted that it was limited to that purchased within the period of sale. Determination of profit is subject to sale, and what is the purpose of purchase is merely indirect circumstances or facts of the determination of profit-making. Thus, even if the Plaintiff purchased the product of this case for the purpose of collection or tolerance other than the purpose of resale, it cannot be concluded that the sale was not for profit

6. Although the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the business feasibility should be denied because the holding period is a long-term period, it is difficult to deem that the business feasibility is denied solely on the sole ground that it merely holds

2) Determination on the assertion that the principle of trust protection is violated

On the other hand, there is no evidence to acknowledge that at the time of the transaction of the art of this case, the tax authorities, including the defendant, expressed the public opinion that the defendant et al. would not impose tax on the transaction of the art of this case on the plaintiff et al., or that the non-taxation practice was established, the disposition of this case cannot be deemed to violate the principle of trust protection (it is not in violation of the principle of trust protection as one of the business income under Article 19 (1) 7 of the former Income Tax Act and Article 19 (1) of the Income Tax Act. The income derived from the retail of the art of this case is listed in the standard income code (523952). The income from the retail of the art of the art of this case is also defined as the business income in the Korean Standard Industrial Classification publicly notified by the Commissioner of the Statistics Korea pursuant to the delegation of Article 19 (3) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the instant disposition is a legitimate disposition that is imposed on the business income subject to taxation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.