[2] 유명 탤런트 갑과 을이 연예매니지먼트사와 전속계약을 체결하고 지급받은 ‘전속계약금’ 소득이 그 실질상 사업소득에 해당한다고 본 사례

[3] The case holding that the taxation of the tax authority imposed the exclusive contract income of Gap and Eul as other business income not other income does not violate the principle of trust protection

[2] The case holding that in case where Gap and Eul et al are responsible for the exclusive and comprehensive management authority over all entertainment activities conducted by the designated entertainment entertainment business operator Eul and Eul (hereinafter "affiliated company"), Gap and Eul cannot make contributions or participate in entertainment activities without the affiliated company's prior consent, and they cannot suspend or retire entertainment activities during the contract period without the affiliated company's permission, and all incomes generated from entertainment activities are entered into an exclusive contract, such as public charges, agency fees, and Gap and Eul are to distribute at a certain ratio, and they are paid the "exclusive contract amount" income under Article 21 (1) 18 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006), but the tax authority revised and notified the global income tax base and tax amount on such global income by deeming them as "other income" under Article 21 (1) 18 of the former Income Tax Act, and the tax authority had the exclusive and independent nature of all entertainment activities with Gap and Eul as "business income," and thus, it can be deemed that it constitutes an exclusive contract amount and independent purpose.

[3] The case holding that since the National Tax Service's established rules, etc. do not state the general opinion that "the exclusive contract amount received by the artist only by entering into a contract with one company or organization or one resident, etc. and received as the nature of "temporary income," it does not constitute other income, and since the exclusive contract amount can not be generally established as other income, it does not mean that the tax authority imposed the exclusive contract amount on Gap and Eul as other income, and it does not violate the principle of trust protection.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

가. 원고들은 유명 탤런트들로서 2006. 1. 15. 연예매니지먼트 사업을 영위하는 소외 주식회사와 사이에 2006. 1. 5.부터 2008. 11. 4.까지 34개월 동안의 연예활동에 관한 독점적이고 포괄적인 전속계약(이하 ‘이 사건 전속계약’이라고 한다)을 체결하면서, 전속계약금으로 원고 1은 200,000,000원, 원고 2는 260,000,000원(이하 ‘이 사건 전속계약금’이라고 한다)을 각 지급받았다.

B. On May 31, 2007, the Plaintiffs deemed that the instant exclusive contract amount constituted other income under Article 21(1)18 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter “former Income Tax Act”) and filed a final return on global income tax for the year 2006 by applying 80% of necessary expenses.

C. However, on May 13, 2009, the Defendant deemed the instant exclusive contract amount as business income and notified Plaintiff 1 of the total income tax accrued to Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 for the correction and notification of the amount of KRW 88,102,720 in 206 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The exclusive contract amount is listed in Article 21 (1) 18 of the former Income Tax Act as one of other income.

In addition, the instant exclusive contract amount received by the Plaintiffs is a temporary and contingent income that is received for the exclusive use of one company, and is not a consideration for the continuous and repeated business activities. Moreover, since the National Tax Service expressed its view that the exclusive contract amount received through the established rules or authoritative interpretation on several occasions constitutes other income, the Plaintiffs’ trust should be protected.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the instant exclusive contract amount is business income

구 소득세법 제21조 제1항 제18호 에서 기타소득으로 정한 ‘전속계약금’은 사업소득 이외의 일시적·우발적 소득에 해당하는 경우만을 의미하는 것으로서 취득한 소득의 명칭이 ‘전속계약금’이라고 하더라도 그것에 사업성이 인정되는 한 이를 사업소득으로 보아야 하고, 탤런트 등 연예인이 독립된 자격에서 용역을 제공하고 받는 소득이 사업소득에 해당하는지 또는 일시소득인 기타소득에 해당하는지 여부는 당사자 사이에 맺은 거래의 형식·명칭 및 외관에 구애될 것이 아니라 그 실질에 따라 평가한 다음, 그 거래의 한쪽 당사자인 당해 납세자의 직업 활동의 내용, 그 활동 기간, 횟수, 태양, 상대방 등에 비추어 그 활동이 수익을 목적으로 하고 있는지 여부와 사업활동으로 볼 수 있을 정도의 계속성과 반복성이 있는지 여부 등을 고려하여 사회통념에 따라 판단하여야 하며, 그 판단을 함에 있어서도 소득을 올린 당해 활동에 대한 것 뿐만 아니라 그 전후를 통한 모든 사정을 참작하여 결정하여야 할 것이다( 대법원 2001. 4. 24. 선고 2000두5203 판결 등 참조).

In the case of this case, according to the exclusive contract entered into with the non-party corporation (refer to the evidence No. 1-2 of this case), the plaintiffs exercise exclusive and comprehensive control over all entertainment activities conducted by the plaintiffs as postponed, and the plaintiffs cannot participate in the entertainment activities, or suspend or retire the entertainment activities without the consent of the affiliated company during the contract period without the consent of the affiliated company, and all incomes generated from the entertainment activities are distributed at the ratio of 2:0 to 8 ratio (However, the ratio of the plaintiffs' TV contribution is distributed at the ratio of 1:9 and the contract was amended on April 21, 2006). In light of the period of the exclusive contract of this case, the exclusive contract of this case, the amount of exclusive contract and other terms and conditions of the contract of this case, it is reasonable to view that all entertainment activities of the plaintiffs as postponed have been made for the purpose of raising profits.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' exclusive contract income of this case is the actual business income.

(2) Whether the principle of trust protection is violated

In general, in order to apply the principle of trust protection to the tax authority's acts in tax law relations, the tax authority must name a public opinion statement that is trusted to taxpayers. In addition, in order to establish non-taxable practices under Article 18 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, there exists an objective fact that has not been imposed for a considerable period of time, and the tax authority must be aware that it is able to impose taxes on the matter, and such public opinion or opinion must be expressed explicitly or implicitly. However, the above public opinion or opinion should be expressed explicitly or implicitly, however, there must be circumstances that the tax authority expressed its intention not to impose taxes on the state of non-taxation for a considerable period of time, unlike mere omission of taxation. In such cases, the above principle should be denied if the expression of intention by the tax authority is merely a general opinion statement (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1065 delivered on January 21, 200, etc.).

On February 21, 200 of the National Tax Service cited by the plaintiffs, the established rules of February 21, 200 by the plaintiffs : "Income 4601-254>, etc., were merely a general theoretical view that the exclusive contract amount received as a temporary income by an artist exclusively by entering into a contract for a company, organization, or one resident, etc., and constitutes other income (see No. 6-1 and No. 2 of the evidence 6), and it cannot be deemed that the practice that the exclusive contract amount is imposed only in any case or other income is generally established. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion that the disposition of this case is unlawful because it violates the principle of trust protection is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-so (Presiding Judge)