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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 501,722,010 against the Plaintiff on April 17, 2014 is revoked.

A. On April 7, 199, KimB purchased a building constructed on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Plaintiff on July 16, 1999 by setting the sales price of KRW 450,000,000, and the payment date of KRW 100,000 on December 30, 199 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. Progress of the relevant lawsuit

1) KimB filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking removal of the instant building and delivery of the instant land on the ground that the instant sales contract is unfair and null and void (Seoul District Court OOB 99Kahap10913). The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking payment of the purchase price and penalty as a counterclaim (Seoul High Court 200Na1114, 200Na121 (Counterclaim)). On November 22, 2000, the appellate court of the said lawsuit (Seoul High Court 200Na114, 200Na121 (Counterclaim)) dismissed the claim, and rendered a judgment that partly accepted the counterclaim, and the KimB appealed appealed appealed against it, but was dismissed (hereinafter referred to as the “instant judgment”).

KimB shall pay to the Plaintiff 450,000,000 won per annum from the Plaintiff and 25% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment, with 15,000 won per annum from December 31, 1999 to April 26, 200; 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; 5,000 won per annum from May 13, 200 to November 22, 200; and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2) On December 22, 2000, after the judgment above, KimB established the right to collateral security of KRW 900,000 with respect to the land of this case to the Plaintiff.

3) KimB filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, such as seeking the cancellation of the aforementioned right to collateral security;

On September 6, 2007, the Seoul OOB District Court rendered a ruling to dismiss all the claims of KimB (2006Gahap22549, 2007Gahap2016, 2007Gahap4340, 2007Gahap4340, 200). The appeal court appealed against this decision, but on January 28, 2008, the appeal court made a ruling to recommend a compromise with the contents that KimB completely withdraws the above appeal, which became final and conclusive as it is [the 2007Na92027, 207Na92034, 207Na92041, 207Na92041, 2041)].

C. After that, on November 7, 2008 under an agreement with KimB, the Plaintiff completed the registration of initial ownership preservation on the instant building on November 7, 2008. On November 20, 2008, the Plaintiff prepared a sales contract with KimB to sell the Plaintiff’s 1/2 shares in KRW 1,287,00,000. On December 2, 2008, the Plaintiff received KRW 1,250,000 from KimB and received KRW 1,250,00,000 from the Plaintiff’s shares in the instant building on the grounds of the sales contract as of November 20, 2008, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of KimB on the first/2 shares in the instant building owned by the Plaintiff.

D. As the ownership of the instant building was transferred as above, the Plaintiff stated the transfer value of KRW 1,287,00,000, and the acquisition value as KRW 1,319,207,596 as of May 31, 2009, and reported the transfer income tax for the year 2008 below taxation.

E. As a result of the tax investigation regarding the transaction of the building of this case, the Defendant: (a) determined that the Plaintiff’s sales amount of KRW 1,450,00,000 received from KimB as the sale of the building of this case ( KRW 200,000,000 on April 15, 2008, and KRW 1,250,000 on December 2, 2008) constituted other income under Article 21 of the Income Tax Act and that the Plaintiff’s sales amount of KRW 57,528,767 on the sales contract of this case was the aggregate of KRW 57,528,767 on December 2, 2008 (i) + KRW 450,000 on the sales price of this case + KRW 15,00,000 on the penalty + KRW 15,000 on the interest rate of KRW 112,528,767 on the date of the final judgment related to this case’s.

F. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 5, 2014, but was dismissed on December 29, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On November 20, 2008, the Plaintiff de facto cancelled the instant sales contract with KimB, and concluded a new sales contract with regard to the instant building by setting the purchase price, payment date, etc., and only received the purchase price from KimB. Accordingly, the instant sales contract is valid, and the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff was paid money exceeding the purchase price and the amount equivalent to the interest specified in the instant sales contract by KimB is unlawful, and thus, should be revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles, etc.

According to Article 21 (1) 10 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2014; hereinafter "former Income Tax Act"), "liability for breach or cancellation of a contract constitutes other income." Article 41 (7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter "former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act") provides that the term "liability for breach or compensation" under Article 21 (1) 10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act means compensation for breach or termination of a contract on property rights, which is paid in excess of damages to the original payment itself which forms the substance of the original contract, and in such case, if the amount of money, etc. returned due to breach or cancellation does not exceed the initial contract payment due to the total amount, it shall be deemed that there is a new intention to incur damages for breach of a contract, such as breach of contract, and shall be deemed as a penalty for breach of contract.

2) In the instant case:

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, evidence No. 6, evidence No. 4, and evidence No. 11, and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to view that the sales contract of November 20, 2008 of the Plaintiff’s assertion was made in a way to reflect additional damages for delay, etc. in the purchase price as a delay in the payment of balance by the buyer KimB, and it is not a new contract that is separate from the sales contract of this case. Accordingly, the first Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

① In light of the fact that on April 15, 2008, the Plaintiff received KRW 200,000,000 from KimB and prepared a receipt (Evidence No. 5) (Evidence No. 5), but the above receipt stated that “the Plaintiff received part of the interest of the claim related to the instant case”, the instant sales contract still seems to have been valid until around that time.

② After the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff did not seem to scam additional costs or efforts for the completion of the instant building. The amount of the sales price received from KimB is not significantly different from the amount of the judgment rendered in the instant case, and there is no obvious reason to determine the increased amount of the sales price.

③ In the course of the tax investigation, KimB was only a document prepared on November 20, 2008 as required for the transfer of ownership to the building of this case, and clearly stated that the sales contract was not concluded after cancelling the sales contract of this case.

④ The Plaintiff submitted a written agreement (Evidence A) dated October 17, 2008, stating the content as shown in his/her assertion, as evidentiary materials. The original is not nonexistent, and the copy is also submitted only during the process of a request for a trial, and thus it is difficult to believe the content as it is.

Even if the above agreement is true, since the contents of this case were to be completed after KimB purchased the building at the time of completion of the contract, the contents of this case were scheduled to be completed after the purchase. Thus, even if KimB acquired 1/2 shares of the building after completion of the building of this case, and thereafter acquired the remaining shares by paying the purchase price to the Plaintiff through an agreement on October 17, 2008, it seems that this is not significantly different from the contents of the original contract of this case (as seen earlier, the amount of the purchase price newly determined by the Plaintiff on November 20, 2008 is not significantly different from the amount calculated by deducting the purchase price already paid from the amount of the judgment of this case).

⑤ The Plaintiff asserted that the new sales contract was concluded on November 20, 2008, and also April 2008.

15. There is no vindication of the nature of KRW 200,000,000, which was received from KimB in accordance with the instant judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.