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

A. On May 12, 2006, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff received KRW 3 billion in return for the transfer of the right to operate the Ma○○ Private Teaching Institute (title: school foundation, ○○○ Institute, hereinafter “instant school”) located in Busan High-dong, Busan High-gu, and on May 12, 2006, the Defendant imposed KRW 1,353,445,400,000 on the Plaintiff on May 13, 2008, on the ground that the said KRW 3 billion was an honorarium among other income under Article 21(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on June 2, 2008, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on July 25, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 through 3, Eul evidence 8 and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① The Plaintiff asserts that the instant transfer/acquisition agreement between the Plaintiff and Kim Jong-soo is null and void as it is in violation of public order, good morals, and other mandatory laws and regulations, and that even if not, it cannot be deemed as a honorarium. ③ Even if it is considered as a honorarium for family affairs, the Plaintiff would have paid KRW 1 billion to the Plaintiff at the time of paying the tax of the school foundation on behalf of the Plaintiff, and paid KRW 50 million to the head of the administrative office Kim Jong-gu, and thus, it should be deducted as necessary expenses. ④ Meanwhile, the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 150 million out of the transfer price of KRW 3 billion from the Hu○-gu, which constitutes the remainder of the settlement, and thus, the Plaintiff should be excluded from the standard amount of KRW 1.5 billion, since it merely did not realize the time when the income accrued or otherwise accepted the security deposit.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff was in office as the principal of the instant school, and Nonparty Kim ○ was in office as the principal of the instant school as the Plaintiff’s wife.

(2) At the time of being employed in the instant school, the overall operation of the instant school was responsible for the Plaintiff.

(3) On May 12, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a transfer/acquisition contract on behalf of Do○○ on behalf of Do○○, on behalf of Do○○ (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”), and the subject matter to be transferred or acquired under the instant transfer contract is the basic assets and beneficiaries of the instant school, and the aggregate of the publicly assessed individual land prices or appraised values of the relevant underlying assets and profit assets is indicated as KRW 8,88,137,000.

(4) According to the statement in the transfer contract of this case, the price of the subject matter of the transfer contract of this case is KRW 3 billion, and KRW 300 million is paid on May 12, 2006, the contract date, and the intermediate payment of KRW 1 billion and KRW 1.7 billion are paid at the same time with the approval of the competent authority.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 3, 5, and 6

C. Determination

(1) Determination as to the assertion that the transfer and acquisition contract of this case is null and void since it contains disposal of school foundation's assets or sale of school management rights

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff stated that the subject matter of the transfer contract of this case is the right to operate the school of this case at the time of undergoing an investigation on April 15, 2008, ② the appraised value of the basic assets and profit-making assets of the school of this case is more than 8.8 billion won and is not in balance with 3 billion won of the transfer contract of this case; ③ the basic assets and profit-making assets of the school of this case are still owned by the school of this case even after the transfer contract of this case; ④ The transfer contract of this case is still owned by the middle contract of this case, and ④ The transfer contract of this case pays the balance with the middle contract of this case under the conditions of the approval of Busan Office of Education, which is the competent authority, and the appointment of five directors at the request of the transfer office of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that part of the transfer contract of this case constitutes a violation of the right to operate the school of this case and the purpose of the transfer contract of this case does not affect the establishment of the right of this case.

(2) Determination as to the assertion that the Plaintiff’s receipt of KRW 3 billion from Hu○ Port cannot be deemed as an honorarium

(A) Article 21(1) of the Income Tax Act provides that "other income shall include interest income, dividend income, real estate rental income, business income, earned income, pension income, retirement income, and income other than capital gains as follows," and subparagraph 17 of Article 21 provides that "compensation" refers to "compensation". The term "compensation" refers to money and valuables paid to the meaning of a case in connection with administrative affairs or the provision of service, etc., and whether it falls under this shall be determined by comprehensively considering the motive and purpose of receiving the relevant money and valuables, relationship with the other party, amount, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu20304 delivered on January 15, 199).

(B) However, the case holding that on May 12, 2006, the Plaintiff, a real operating of the instant school, signed an agreement to transfer the right to operate the instant school to KRW 3 billion on behalf of the president, on behalf of the president, by replacing the director and the president of the instant school on behalf of the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff paid KRW 2.85 billion to the Plaintiff by July 26, 2006, and that the Plaintiff was paid KRW 2.85 billion to the Plaintiff by July 26, 2006, and that the Plaintiff resigned from the office of the instant school and the director of the instant school, and that the Plaintiff had the person recommended by ○○ and Do○○○, take office as the light director of the instant school, as seen earlier, the sales price of the instant KRW 3 billion under the instant transfer agreement constitutes a real operating person of the instant school, such as the right to appoint the director and the president of the instant school, and thus, constitutes a procedure of Article 17 (1) of the Income Tax Act.

(C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(3) The judgment on the assertion that the Plaintiff should deduct the amount of KRW 1,00,000 as necessary expenses because the Plaintiff repaid the amount of KRW 50,000,000 to the school juristic person’s liability on behalf of the school juristic person, repaid the amount of KRW 50,000,000 to the cafeteria Kim-gu.

(A) The burden of proof of the tax base, which is the basis of taxation in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the global income tax assessment in question, is the tax authority, and the tax base is the tax base after deducting necessary expenses from revenue, so the tax authority has the burden of proof of income and necessary expenses. However, considering that the necessary expenses are favorable to the taxpayer and most of the facts generating the necessary expenses are within the scope of the control of the person without the duty to pay taxes, and it is easy to prove them, it is consistent with the concept of fairness to recognize the necessity of proof for the taxpayer by permitting the presumption of non-existence of necessary expenses which the taxpayer does not perform the duty to prove (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du1588, Sept. 23, 2004; 2006Du16137, Oct. 26, 2007).

(B) In the instant case, as asserted by the Plaintiff, necessary expenses, such as debts of KRW 1 billion following the payment on behalf of the corporate tax, etc. of the instant school, KRW 50 million for restaurant deposit of the instant school, KRW 50 million for the head of the administrative office Kim ○-ro, etc., and KRW 50 million for the head of the administrative office, are most located in the area under the Plaintiff’s control, and it is difficult for the Defendant, who is the tax authority, to prove it, and there is considerable need to prove it. Thus, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to prove

(C) Therefore, there is no reason for the plaintiff to be dismissed in part.

(4) The determination on the assertion that since the Plaintiff failed to receive KRW 150 million out of the transfer price of KRW 3 billion from Dozzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzine

(A) According to the evidence evidence Nos. 4, 80 million won can be acknowledged as having been paid to the Plaintiff only to the extent of KRW 150 million after deducting KRW 100 million out of KRW 3 billion under the transfer contract of this case. However, as to KRW 150 million, it seems that the above KRW 100 million out of the above KRW 150 million was the lease deposit of the Busan-dong ○○-dong 675-13, 15 above ground-based commercial building (hereinafter "the commercial building of this case"), which is the basic property for the school of this case, the amount of KRW 30,000,000,000 from KRW 130,000,000,000,000 from KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000.

3. Conclusion

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