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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of global income tax of KRW 0,000,000 against the Plaintiff on April 8, 2014 by the Defendant is revoked.

A. On June 18, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the owner of commercial building, including the Plaintiff, for the purpose of rebuilding apartment units located outside of the commercial building in ○○○-dong, Seoul and ○○○-○○○○, and the first and second commercial building management body located outside of the commercial building. On June 18, 2003 (Seoul Central District Court 2003Gahap45156), the lawsuit was concluded on April 26, 2007 between the Plaintiff and the owner of commercial building, including the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “instant mediation”).

- Strategy -

2. The owners of commercial buildings, including the Plaintiff, agree to change the main land owned by the reconstruction association of the first and second reconstruction association into the housing site.

3.S 1 and 2 reconstruction association shall ensure the consent of the owners of commercial buildings, including the plaintiff, to ensure that the owners of commercial buildings, including the plaintiff, who are scheduled to implement the remodeling subsidy of 0,000,000,000,000, which is scheduled to be promoted, does not impede the reconstruction project and authorization of the reconstruction association of SS 1 and 2, and shall pay to the owners of commercial buildings, including the plaintiff, within three months after the completion of the period of conclusion of the sales contract between SS 1 and 2 reconstruction association and members.

-Tye:

B. The Defendant confirmed that the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share ratio among the remodeling subsidies following the instant conciliation (hereinafter “instant subsidies”) was not reported on global income tax. On April 8, 2014, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of global income tax of KRW 0,000,000 for the instant subsidies reverted to the Plaintiff in 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an objection on July 14, 2014, but was dismissed on November 12, 2014, but filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on March 18, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the right to receive the subsidy of this case was established in 2007, which includes the date of the formation of the conciliation of this case, and it shall be deemed that the subsidy of this case is the income devolving upon 2007, since it is considerably high possibility of realizing such income, some of the members of the SS 1 and secondary commercial building management organization shall be deemed to be the income devolving upon 2007, and the Tax Tribunal filed a request for adjudication with the Tax Tribunal after being imposed income tax belonging to 2008 to the same purport as the disposition of this case. The Tax Tribunal decided that the time of attribution of the remodeling subsidy of 2007 and revoked all the disposition of imposing the income tax of this case

B. Relevant statutes

(1) Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9270 of Dec. 26, 2008)

Article 39 (Accretion Year, etc. of Total Amount of Income and Necessary Expenses)

(1) The year to which the total income and necessary expenses of a resident are reverted shall be the year in which the total income and necessary expenses are determined.

C. Determination

(1) The right confirmation principle, which is the principle of determining the time of attribution under the Income Tax Act, is not the time when the income is realized, but the income of the year concerned is deemed to have been realized at the time of the occurrence of the right, and the income of the year concerned is practically calculated on the premise that it will be realized in the future. However, the concept of "determined" in the right confirmation principle cannot be defined as a general principle that does not include any exception to the time of attribution of income. As to specific matters, the time of attribution should be determined on the basis of whether there has been a considerable maturity and confirmed to the extent that there is a high possibility of realizing the income (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du9617, Sept. 30, 201).

In full view of the above facts and relevant legal principles, the following circumstances: ① the commercial divided owners and SS first and second reconstruction associations agreed to pay the subsidy of this case within three months after the completion of the contract for sale in lots between the SS first and second reconstruction associations and the members of the association; thus, on the date of the contract for sale in lots, it shall be deemed that the payment agreement was considerably mature and finalized to the extent that the possibility of realizing the subsidy of this case was considerably high; and the time when the commercial divided owners, such as the Plaintiff, can be said to have no obstacle to the execution of the claim for the subsidy of this case; ② some of the commercial divided owners were revoked the income tax disposition according to the decision of the Tax Tribunal, but this is merely a discrimination between the Plaintiff and some of the commercial divided owners in accordance with the system that did not appeal the decision of the Tax Tribunal (i.e., the time of attribution of the subsidy of this case is 208, considering the fact that the plaintiff's argument is that the period of attribution of income of this case is 2008.

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.