(영문) 서울고등법원 2013. 1. 17. 선고 2012누22050 판결[종합소득세등부과처분취소][미간행]
Plaintiff (Law Firm Han & Yang LLC, Attorneys Yoon-ju et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office
December 13, 2012
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap7288 decided June 29, 2012
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 revoked the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 486,623,390, and global income tax of KRW 139,470,260, belonging to the year 2006, belonging to the plaintiff on March 7, 201 (the above tax amount seems to include penalty tax in the record).
1. 제1심 판결의 이유는 타당하므로 행정소송법 제8조 제2항 , 민사소송법 제420조 본문에 의하여 이 판결의 이유로 인용한다(다만, 제1심 판결문 제6쪽 중 제12행과 제20∽21행의 각 “ 소득세법 제21조 제1항 제7호 ” 부분은 각 “ 소득세법 제21조 제1항 제17호 ”의 잘못된 기재로 보인다).
2. In the appellate court, the Plaintiff asserts that the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty for the settlement of the partnership business, and the confirmation documents submitted by the Plaintiff in the appellate court, etc., that the amount the Plaintiff received from the Nonparty pursuant to the instant agreement was paid as compensation for the Nonparty’s continued use of the design and the pattern of the salary-proof system developed by the Plaintiff after the settlement of the partnership business relationship with the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition that the Plaintiff received the money from the Nonparty was unlawful.
According to the agreement between the plaintiff and the non-party No. 2 (Evidence No. 2-1) of this case, the plaintiff merely indicated the "cost for liquidation of business operation" as to the money agreed upon by the non-party No. 1 (see, e.g., records) and does not state that the plaintiff would be paid for the design, internship, etc. developed by the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff, as well as the non-party No. 2, the non-party paid the money to the plaintiff at the first instance court is merely an consolation fund for the plaintiff's work with the non-party, and it is clearly stated that the plaintiff's work was not the price for the design, etc. developed by the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff, and the non-party No. 7 and No. 9, which were additionally submitted by the plaintiff at the appellate court, the evidence presented by the non-party No. 2 cannot be concluded to be false, and there is no objective evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff's testimony was unlawful in light of the plaintiff's agreement on the design and development of the non-party No. 2.
3. If so, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.
Judges Lee Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)