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

A. On July 9, 2007, the Superintendent of the Middle-gu Regional Tax Office confirmed that this case’s store Nos. 102, 103, and 104 (hereinafter referred to as the “each of the instant stores, including the three stores of the instant building”) sold to the Plaintiff by this case, △△-dong, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, △-dong, △△-dong, △△-dong, which was sold to the Plaintiff by this case, was constructed differently from the contract terms at the time of the sales contract, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data on the Plaintiff.

B. Accordingly, on May 13, 2008, the Defendant determined that the amount of KRW 250,000,000 was a penalty or compensation that was reduced due to a breach or cancellation of a contract, and determined that it constituted other income, and imposed global income tax of KRW 137,264,870 on the Plaintiff in 2002 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the following reasons, KRW 250 million, which the Plaintiff received, falls under the compensation to compensate for actual losses caused by the breach of the contract, such as the △△△, etc., and thus, does not constitute other income under the Income Tax Act.

(1) 원고는 이 사건 각 점포를 터서 하나의 점포로 바꾸어 ★★전자 대리점의 전자제품 전시ㆍ판매장으로 사용할 생각이었으나, 계약내용과 달리 이 사건 각 점포 사이의 벽을 철거하지 못하게 됨에 따라 대리점을 운영하지 못하고 임대만이 가능하게 되었다. 그런데, 이 사건 각 점포를 대리점으로 이용할 경우 얻을 수 있었던 사업소득금액과 이 사건 각 점포에 대한 임대소득금액의 차이는 2억 5,000만 원을 상회한다.

(2) In addition, if each of the instant stores was supplied as one store pursuant to the terms and conditions of the contract, the Plaintiff would have been able to receive a larger amount of the purchase price even in the case of disposing of each of the instant stores in the future. The difference between the future transfer price of each of the instant stores in the event of supply according to the terms and conditions of the contract and the future transfer price of each of the instant stores in the event of supply is above KRW 250 million.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The circumstances leading to the conclusion of the sales contract for the stores of the instant case

(가) 원고는 1990. 4. 25.부터 ◇◇ △△구 상○○○ 212-2에서 ★★전자 ○○○중앙 대리점을 운영하던 중 위 대리점을 이전할 계획으로, 2002. 1. 11. ●●●●개발이라는 상호로 주상복합건물을 건축하여 분양하는 이☆☆ 등으로부터 이 사건 각 점포를 합계 1,045,432,984원에 분양받고, 이☆☆ 등에게 2002. 1. 18.까지 계약금으로 209,086,596 원을 지급하였다. 이☆☆ 등은 이 사건 각 점포가 별도로 분양될 경우 분양대금으로 합계 1,116,999,054원을 받을 생각이었으나, 원고가 이 사건 각 점포를 한꺼번에 분양 받자 그 분양대금을 1,045,432,984원으로 감액하여 주었다.

(나) 원고는 위 분양계약 체결 당시 ●●●●개발의 분양담당자에게 이 사건 각 점포를 터서 하나의 점포로 사용하겠다는 목적을 알렸고, 이에 ●●●●개발의 직원 김◎◎는 원고에게 이 사건 건물의 102호와 103호 사이의 칸막이 벽은 옹벽이 아니므로 터서 사용할 수 있고 104호와 주출입문 사이의 벽은 유리칸막이 벽으로 설치된다고 설명하여 주었다.

(2) Details and details of the preparation of the written agreement

(가) 그러나 이 사건 건물의 102호와 103호 사이의 벽과 104호와 주출입구 사이의 벽은 모두 옹벽으로서 건축구조상 철거할 수 없고 102호와 103호의 바닥 높이도 약 30cm의 차이가 나서 이 사건 각 점포를 터서 하나의 대형점포로 사용하는 것이 불가능하게 되자, 원고는 2002. 1. 28. 기존에 운영하던 ★★전자 ○○○중앙대리점을 폐업하고, 2002. 4. 2. 이☆☆ 등을 채무자로, 청구금액을 손해배상금 2억 5,000만 원으로 하여 이 사건 건물이 건축된 대지에 가압류를 신청하였고 2002. 4. 11. 가압류 결정을 받았다(◇◇지방법원 2002카단1763).

(B) On June 28, 2002, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming interest on 250 million won and interest on the interest in arrears with the following content as the cause of the claim, on June 28, 2002, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming interest on the amount of KRW 250 million with the Seoul Special Self-Governing Province, etc. (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Do 2002

The walls between 102 and 103 and the main entrance and exit cannot be removed. Since the prices to be formed for each of the stores of this case in the future significantly decline and the agency’s failure to operate the agency, the damages incurred in the future, making it difficult to significantly reduce future profits, the Do governor, etc. is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by defects and tort of the object.

(C) On September 9, 2002, when the lawsuit under the above paragraph (b) was pending, the Plaintiff prepared a written agreement with the Seoul Special Self-Governing Province on September 9, 2002, and received KRW 250,000,000 from the Seoul Special Self-Governing Province, etc. (hereinafter the above agreement and KRW 250,000,000,000,000).

O The Plaintiff and this Do-U.S. agreed that the retaining wall between 104 of the building of this case and the main entrance and exit of this case will be removed and the glass will be created. The problem of retaining wall between 102 and 103 will no longer be raised.

O) The Plaintiff filed against this △△, etc., △△ District Court 2002Kahap36384 case and △△△ District Court 2002Kadan1763 case shall be fully withdrawn.

(3) Method of the payment of the sale price and the receipt of the agreed amount

(A) Even after becoming aware of the fact that each of the instant stores cannot be used as one store, the Plaintiff did not request the cancellation of the sales contract for each of the instant stores, and paid KRW 209,086,596 each of the instant stores to the △△△△△, etc., according to the date of the payment of the intermediate payment. On March 15, 2002, May 15, 2002, and July 15, 2007, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,209,086,596

(B) At the time of the preparation of the instant agreement, the Plaintiff and the △△△△, etc. agreed to pay the other party the agreed amount and the balance to each of the instant stores in lieu of reducing the sales price in proportion to the amount equivalent to the instant agreement. Accordingly, on September 9, 2002, the date of the preparation of the instant agreement, the △△△, etc. paid the Plaintiff the agreed amount, and on November 20, 2002, the Plaintiff paid the remainder of KRW 209,086,596 for each of the instant stores to the △△△△, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3-6, 10, 11 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Article 21 (1) 10 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006) provides that "a penalty or compensation received due to a breach or cancellation of a contract" as one of other income. Article 41 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19890 of Feb. 18, 2007) provides that "compensation or compensation under Article 21 (1) 10 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19890 of Feb. 18, 2007)" means compensation received due to a breach or termination of a contract on property rights, which would be a "value of money or other goods paid in excess of the original contract itself," and in this case, if the value of money or other goods returned due to a breach or termination of a contract does not exceed the total amount paid initially, it shall not be deemed that the contract itself has more net property value paid in excess of the original contract."

(2) In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the agreement in this case constitutes the value of money or other goods to compensate for damages exceeding the damages to the payer itself, which is the original content of the contract.

(A) Even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, if each of the instant stores was supplied as the content of the sales contract, the agreement is compensation for compensating for the increase in future business income and future transfer value that the Plaintiff could have accrued, and as such, the damages arising from the loss of lost profit was incurred by the failure to obtain an increase in property that would have been accrued if the contract was performed properly, and it is difficult to view it as the actual damages arising from the breach of the contract.

(B) In addition, the fact that each of the stores of this case was not suitable for the Plaintiff’s subjective purpose of using each of the stores of this case as a terter due to the violation of the contract of △△, △△, etc. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is that the sales price of each of the stores of this case is higher than that of the other stores, and the objective value of each of the stores of this case actually supplied falls short of that of the Plaintiff’s sales price paid, or there is no violation of the contract, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the net asset decrease due to the removal of retaining wall between 102 and 103 of the building of this case, i.e., the value of each of the stores of this case’s 102 and 103, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the sales contract of this case’s stores of this case was more reduced than the sales price of each of the stores of this case’s 102 and 103, and the Plaintiff did not have agreed to the objective settlement price of this case’s each of this case’s sales price.

(C) If the Plaintiff’s assertion that compensation for compensating for the loss of lost profit in the future is not imposed on other income, there is no violation of the contract in terms of taxation (if business income was generated by operating the agency at each of the instant stores, the comprehensive income tax should have been paid, and if the Plaintiff transferred each of the instant stores at a higher transfer price in the future, the transfer income tax should have been paid).

(D) Furthermore, as the Plaintiff takes a method of separately paying the sales price without reducing the sales price as much as the amount equivalent to the instant agreed money, the Plaintiff did not reflect the agreed money in the acquisition price of each of the instant stores. Therefore, even if the instant agreed money is imposed by deeming it as other income, it is not likely to suffer disadvantages in relation to the calculation of capital gains tax when transferring each of the instant stores in the future.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition, which imposed the instant agreement by deeming it as other income, is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.