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

가. 원고는 〇〇 〇〇구 〇〇동 1196 〇〇아파트 6동 201호(이하 '이 사건 아파트'라 한다)의 소유자였는데, 2007. 9. 13. △△아파트 재건축정비사업조합(이하 '재건축조합'이라 한다)에 이 사건 아파트를 양도하면서 재건축조합으로부터 90,995,000원, 위 재건축사업의 시행사인 □□공영 주식회사(이하 '□□공영'이라 한다)로부터 139,750,000원(원천 징수되는 소득세 27,950,000원, 주민세 2,795,000원을 제외하고 실제 지급받은 돈은 109,005,000원이다, 이하 '이 사건 금원'이라 한다), 합계 230,745,000원을 받았다.

B. On June 4, 2009, the Defendant imposed and notified 8,261,50 won each of the global income tax for the year 2007 on the ground that the instant money that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant money was “an honorarium,” which is other income under Article 21(1)17 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 25, 2009, but dismissed on November 20, 2009, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on February 17, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence 1, 2, 3, 1 and 2 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff, while selling the apartment of this case to the reconstruction association, set the sales amount of KRW 200 million that the Plaintiff actually received after deducting all capital gains tax, etc. from the Plaintiff. At that time, the Plaintiff was aware that all of the said money was paid by the reconstruction association.

2) Among them, the instant disposition against which the Defendant imposed a comprehensive income tax on the instant money by deeming it to be an honorarium among other income, as it was that △ Public Corporation paid part of the purchase price of the instant apartment on behalf of the reconstruction association in lieu of the reconstruction association.

3) In addition, since the reconstruction association's 139.75 million won paid by △ public office includes the amount of damages and directors' expenses incurred by unauthorized intrusion on the apartment of this case owned by the plaintiff, the amount of damages out of such amount of damages shall be excluded from taxable income, but the expenses for directors' expenses should be deducted from necessary expenses.

4) Even if the above KRW 139,750,00,000 is a honorarium, the Defendant, while making the instant disposition, made the instant disposition by adding the Plaintiff’s husband’s wage and salary income of KRW 19,426,50,00 that the Plaintiff’s husband received from the enterprise corporation in △△△, thereby making the instant disposition unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) 재건축조합은 〇〇지방법원 2005가단60849호로 원고에 대하여 원고가 재건축조합의 조합원이므로 조합원으로서의 의무를 이행하여야 한다면서, 재건축조합에게 이 사건 아파트에 관하여 신탁약정을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기절차 이행을 구하는 소를 제기하였다(이하 '이 사건 민사소송'이라 한다).

2) 원고는 이러한 재건축조합의 청구에 대하여, 최초에는 재건축조합이 재건축결의와 재건축변경결의를 하면서 조합원들의 개별부담금액이 얼마인지를 고지하지 않았고, 관리처분계획을 의결한 총회절차에도 하자가 있을 뿐만 아니라 재건축조합의 조합원 다수가 관리처분계획무효확인 소송을 제기하는 등 재건축조합의 사업에 문제가 많으므로 재건축조합의 청구에 응할 수 없다고 항변하다가, 이 사건 소송 도중 원고에게 이 사건 아파트를 매도한 전 소유자 유BB이 재건축조합에 대하여 한 재건축동의를 철회하였고 이에 대하여 〇〇광역시 〇〇구청장이유BB을 재건축조합원 명부에서 제외시킬 것을 재건축조합에 명한 사실 등을 알고 난 후, 유BB으로부터 이 사건 아파트를 매수한 원고는 재건축사업에 동의한다는 의사를 재건축조합에 표시한 바 없어 조합원이 아니라고 주장하였다.

3) The Plaintiff’s reconstruction association received KRW 91.6 million equivalent to the market price of the apartment of this case from the Plaintiff and added the Plaintiff’s claim seeking implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the claim for sale.

4) As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the exercise of the right to claim sale by the reconstruction association did not meet its requirements, and that even if the right to claim sale from the reconstruction association is recognized, the Plaintiff should receive KRW 160 million as the settlement money for the apartment of this case from the reconstruction association.

5) In the civil lawsuit of this case, on June 14, 2007, the above court paid 150 million won to the plaintiff with the apartment price of this case and decided to recommend a settlement with the purport that the plaintiff shall comply with the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer to the reconstruction association at the same time, but both the plaintiff and the reconstruction association raise an objection against this.

6) On August 22, 2007, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the conjunctive claim on the ground that the plaintiff is not a member of the reconstruction association, and there is no reason to believe that the reconstruction association made a resolution for reconstruction and notified the plaintiff in writing that he would promptly reply to whether he will participate in the reconstruction due to the use of the resolution, and the reconstruction association appealed.

7) The reconstruction association and the construction company of △△ Public Corporation requested the Plaintiff to agree on the instant apartment in order to prevent enormous increase in costs due to the possibility of re-building resolution due to the extinguishment of the right to demand sale.

8) Accordingly, on September 11, 2007, the Plaintiff received KRW 200 million after deducting the tax withheld in return for the transfer of the apartment of this case from the head of the YCC and the head of the Park Park Jong-gu public office, a general director of the reconstruction association, and the head of the Dong-gu public office, but agreed to receive KRW 90,95,00 from the date of the contract to the reconstruction association immediately after the transfer registration of ownership to the reconstruction association.

9) Accordingly, at the time of the agreement by the head of the △ public funeral home, the Plaintiff paid the instant money as a check and received the documents related to the registration of ownership transfer from the Plaintiff.

10) The reconstruction association withdrawn the instant civil lawsuit on September 12, 2007.

11) The instant apartment was registered as a reconstruction association on September 13, 2007. According to the sales contract prepared between the Plaintiff and the reconstruction association attached at the time of applying for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant apartment, the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff would receive the purchase price of KRW 90,995,00 from the reconstruction association on September 12, 2007 as a lump sum payment, and accordingly, the actual transaction value of the instant apartment was registered as KRW 90,95,000.

12) After that, the Plaintiff received KRW 90,995,00 from the reconstruction association around September 14, 2007 by account transfer.

[Ground of recognition] The statements in Gap's evidence 15, Eul's evidence 2 to 5 (including all of the paper numbers), the witness mostA's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Article 21 (1) 17 of the Income Tax Act provides that "an honorarium" shall be limited to one type of other income, and the above "an honorarium" refers not to the money paid for the goods or services itself in connection with administrative affairs or the provision of services, but to the money and goods paid for the purpose of a separate case. Whether it constitutes such money and goods shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the motive and purpose of receiving the relevant money and goods, relationship with the other party, amount, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu20304, Jan. 15, 1999).

2) 살피건대, 위 인정사실 및 앞서 든 증거에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들 즉, ① 원고로부터 이 사건 아파트를 매수한 것은 재건축조합으로 □□공영은 원고에게 이 사건 아파트와 관련하여 그 대금을 지급할 의무가 없는 점, ② 당시 원고가 이 사건 아파트 소유권을 재건축조합으로 이전하여 주지 않아 재건축 공사가 지연됨으로 인하여 시행사인 □□공영이 상당한 손해를 입고 있었던 점, ③ 재건축조합이 원고를 상대로 한 민사소송에서 원고가 재건축조합의 조합원이 아닌 사실이 〇〇광역시 〇〇구청장이 재건축조합에 보낸 공문 등의 증거로 명백해졌고, 재건축조합이 원고에게 매도청구권의 요건이 되는 최고 등의 절차를 이행하지 않아 항소한다 하더라도 재건축조합이 승소할 가능성이 높지 않았던 점, ④ 매도청구권이 소멸하였다면 다시 재건축결의를 해야 하고 이로 인하여 □□공영은 막대한 비용 증가가 예상된 점, ⑤ 원고는 이 사건 민사소송에서 이 사건 아파트의 청산금으로 □□공영과 재건축조합으로부터 지급 받은 돈보다 약 7,000만 원 이상 적은 1억 6,000만 원을 지급받아야 한다고 주장하였던 점, ⑥ 원고와 재건축조합 사이의 이 사건 아파트 매매계약서에도 매매대금이 90,995,000원으로 기재된 점 등을 종합하면, 이 사건 금원은 원고가 이 사건 아파트를 조속히 양도하여 이 사건 재건축사업 진행에 협조하는 대가로 지급한 것으로 보아야 할 것이고, 따라서 피고가 이 사건 금원을 소득세법 제21조 제1항 제17호가 정한 '사례금'으로 보고 한 이 사건 처분은 적법하다.

3) The Plaintiff asserts that out of the instant money, the amount of damages and the amount of KRW 2 million paid by the reconstruction association to the Plaintiff includes approximately KRW 2 million, and that among them, the amount of directors’ expenses constitutes necessary expenses and should be deducted.

According to the statement of evidence No. 9, the plaintiff, on April 26, 2007, infringed on the apartment of this case without permission, moved the household district and removed the apartment of this case, and filed a criminal complaint with the reconstruction association, etc. due to intrusion upon the house and larceny.

However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant monetary amount paid by △ Public Co., Ltd. to the Plaintiff includes damages or directors’ expenses incurred by the reconstruction association against the Plaintiff. Rather, there is no evidence to acknowledge this differently. Rather, as seen earlier, the instant monetary amount is an honorarium paid by △ Public Co., Ltd. to the Plaintiff in return for cooperation in the progress of the reconstruction project, and this assertion is without merit.

4) In addition, the Plaintiff alleged that the disposition in this case was in violation of the law by adding up the amount of 19,426,50 won paid by the Plaintiff’s husband to an enterprise in △△△△, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff has earned income of KRW 8,793,125 while working for the enterprise in △△△, a company in charge of △△, and the Defendant was found to have taken the disposition in this case by adding up the Plaintiff’s above working income. Therefore, the Plaintiff

3. Conclusion

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