(영문) 서울고등법원 2017. 1. 24. 선고 2016누68696 판결[종합소득세부과처분취소][미간행]
Plaintiff (Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Head of the District Tax Office
January 10, 2017
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Guhap52545 decided September 30, 2016
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of global income tax of 28,286,270 won (including additional tax of 10,713,147 won) for the year 2009, effective May 10, 2015, global income tax of 74,274,620 won (including additional tax of 24,90,391 won) for the year 2010, global income tax of 2011, global income tax of 64,480,040 won (including additional tax of 18,341,264 won), global income tax of 29,869,540 won for the year 2009, global income tax of 2012 (including additional tax of 6,522,68 won), and the imposition of additional tax of 21,341,580 won for the year 2013, and the imposition of additional tax of 37,3737
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the revision of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
○ Part 6 of the Decision of the first instance court No. 10 “The following shall be added:
8 Even if the court has appointed a trustee in bankruptcy in consideration of the past trustee's experience in light of the convenience in performing its duties, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's continuation and repetition of the business performed by the trustee in bankruptcy since 2002 in light of the actual performance of the business performed by the trustee in bankruptcy for several years. Even if the remuneration of the trustee in bankruptcy is determined by the court in comprehensive consideration of the financial status of the bankruptcy estate, the degree of the trustee in bankruptcy, etc., the remuneration of the trustee in bankruptcy cannot be deemed profit-making in light of the total remuneration received by the plaintiff.
○ On the 6th judgment of the first instance court, the phrase “at the first instance court” was followed as follows.
The remuneration of the trustee in bankruptcy is also income derived from continuous and repeated activities under his/her own account and responsibility for profit-making purposes.
○ Part 6, Paragraph 14, of the first instance court ruling, the following shall be added:
(3) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on taxation without any justifiable reason, and by misapprehending the legal principles on taxation without any justifiable reason, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on taxation without any justifiable reason, as it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on taxation without any justifiable reason, or by exceeding the legal principles on taxation without any justifiable reason. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on taxation without any justifiable reason, as it did not err by exceeding the legal principles on taxation under Article 18(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.
Judge highest order (Presiding Judge)