2. The plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit after filing the appeal.

This Court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance (from 2.1 to 8.12 pages) is the same as that of the pertinent part of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance (from 2.3 to 8.12 pages), and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part to be removed or added)

In addition, "the agreement of this case" and "the obligation of this case" are "the obligation of this case" and "the obligation of this case, including the obligation of the settlement of this case and the obligation of the settlement of this case," and "the obligation of this case" are "the obligation of this case," and "the agreement of this case and the obligation of this case" are "the obligation of this case," and "the sum of the obligation of the settlement of this case and the obligation of the settlement of this case and the obligation of the settlement of this case and the obligation of the settlement of this case together with the above obligation of this case to the maximum of ○ of the plaintiff and Park Jong-gu," respectively.

O No. 15 of the third place "from the highest ○○○," added "the issuer's lectures, shopping," below.

O 3rd 17th △△△△△△, the third 17th " Park △△△△", shall be deemed to be " Park △△△.

O 4. The fourth page of the 4th page shall add 1.2, 200 to the following:

O 4 pages 9 "(0,000,000 X 50/224)" (=00,000,000 won X 50/224) is "(=00,000,000 X 50/224,00 won)."

O's principal' in front of the 5th page 2 above shall be added "=".

Pursuant to the 5th sentence of the 9th page, the term "[=00,000,000 + 0.400,000 + 000,000 + 000,000,000 + 000,000,000 + 000,000]" is "[=00,0000,0000 + 0.40322 + 000,000,000 + 000,0000 + 00,000]."

Pursuant to Part 5, "Incompetence" in Part 19 of the 5th page, the following shall be added "through an objection on August 8, 2007."

2. Parts that vary from the judgment of the first instance court;

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Income tax is imposed on a person who is deemed to have the ability to pay a taxpayer when it controls, manages, or takes over a certain economic benefit, regardless of the nature and effect under the private law. Thus, even if certain income is deemed to accrue under the private law, if it is merely an accounting, reputation, and actual economic profit cannot be controlled, managed, or taken over, and is not deemed to have the ability to pay, income tax cannot be deemed as taxable income. It cannot be said that there is income subject to income tax if it is not deemed that the debtor has the ability to pay a taxpayer. It is not different from the previous one in that the debtor transfers a claim in lieu of the repayment of the principal and interest to the creditor as a penalty or compensation for nonperformance of the principal and interest of the claim that exceeds the amount of the principal and interest of the original claim, and the creditor still remains in a situation where the debtor and the bond face value are changed, but it still remains insufficient to obtain the actual and final satisfaction of the claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do19890, Feb. 28, 2007).

Examining the facts acknowledged earlier in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is deemed that ○○○ transferred the instant payment order claim in lieu of performing the obligation with the intention of devolving the principal of the instant original claim on the penalty for nonperformance of the obligation in the value of the instant payment order claim, and the intention of the Plaintiff and Masan to vest the principal of the instant original claim in the payment order claim amount, and thus, it cannot be deemed that other income was generated from the instant original claim on July 24, 2000 when the effect of the assignment of the claim in lieu of the repayment of the obligation takes place, and the amount exceeding the principal of the instant original claim out of the amount of the payment order of the instant original claim collected by the Plaintiff and Masan in reality shall be deemed to be June 14, 207, which can be deemed to be the date of payment of other income from the original claim, and therefore, the instant disposition imposed on the Plaintiff as other income accrued in the year 207 is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.