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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of 00, 00, 000, and 00 won against the Plaintiff on September 3, 2014 is revoked.

A. On June 4, 2005, the Korea ○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the non-party company”) implemented the construction of ○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○ Construction”). As to the apartment of 1798-4 and 7 lots of ground B apartment (hereinafter referred to as “the apartment of this case”), the Korea ○○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the non-party company”) guaranteed the security deposit for the apartment of this case, which is the pre-resident of the instant apartment.

B. On July 16, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with ○○ Construction and the said apartment A-dong 2003 (hereinafter “instant apartment sales goods”) to sell them to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○ Bank”) on the aggregate of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW loaned from ○○ Bank (hereinafter “○○ Bank”) on August 16, 2005, and remitted the sales proceeds to the bank account designated by ○○○ Construction from July 18, 2005 to August 13, 2007.

C. On July 8, 2009, the non-party company decided that the ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., a contractor, could not perform the entire sales contract due to disagreements such as the settlement of construction costs and inspection of use, etc., and dealt with it as a guarantee accident, and approved the refund of the seller on August 28, 2009. However, upon the plaintiff's claim for the refund against the non-party company, the non-party company refused to perform the refund on the ground that the plaintiff does not constitute a normal contractor under the terms and conditions of the main multi-modal sale guarantee attached to the guarantee contract. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the refund against the non-party company under Seoul Southern District Court 201Gahap1362, which filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Southern District Court 201Ga1362, and the above court dismissed the appeal by the non-party company against the plaintiff on January 17, 2012 that the non-party company and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from February 2, 20111.

D. On December 27, 2012, the Defendant paid ○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “instant damages for delay”) with respect to the sales deposit from the non-party company, and this constitutes “the penalty and compensation received due to the breach or termination of the contract under Article 21(1)10 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12852, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter referred to as the “former Income Tax Act”) on the ground that the instant damages for delay, on September 3, 2014, considered the instant damages for delay as other income and imposed and notified the Plaintiff of global income tax for the year 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

E. On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that all income was faithfully reported and paid in full, and thereafter filed an appeal against the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal for the revocation lawsuit on November 14, 2014. The Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on December 22, 2014 on the ground that the instant damages for delay constituted other income under the former Income Tax Act and thus falls under the subject of reporting.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including number 2; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Of the money paid by the Plaintiff to ○○ Construction as the sale price in this case, ○○○○○○○○○ was granted a loan from ○○○○○○○○○○○. Of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ that had been liable to pay in accordance with the instant refund execution decision, the Nonparty Company withheld at source the total income tax and local income tax on the instant damages on delay, and paid only the remainder, which is the remainder, to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was directly paid to ○○○○○○○, and corresponding to the agreed person. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s income is limited to the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was the total amount of the Plaintiff’s income, and paid the Plaintiff the income tax on the instant damages on which the Plaintiff calculated the total amount

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) On December 27, 2012, when the non-party company was declared to perform the refund of this case, the non-party company ○○○○○.

○○○○○○○ and Local Income Tax on ○○○○○○○ and ○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the instant damages for delay, after withholding at ○○○○○ and ○○○○○○○○○○ on behalf of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff paid the principal principal ○○○○ and the agreed ○○○○○ on behalf of the Plaintiff, and paid the remaining balance to the Plaintiff.

2) On December 2012, the Plaintiff respectively drafted a "certificate of subrogation" to the effect that the Plaintiff received ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in the instant case of the instant goods sold in lots from Nonparty Company as a judgment payment for the instant refund performance, and "written consent for the receipt of judgment by subrogation" to the effect that the Plaintiff would directly repay the principal and interest of ○○○○○○○○ in the instant case of the instant goods sold in lots to Nonparty Company.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, the Korean ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Center

D. Determination

According to the above facts, the right to receive the sale deposit and the delay compensation therefor according to the decision on the performance of the refund in this case is the plaintiff, and the non-party company paid part of the above judgment to ○○ bank is merely a substitute payment for the plaintiff's obligation to pay the loan to ○○ bank. Therefore, even if the plaintiff directly paid part of the sale deposit and the delay compensation to the plaintiff due to the circumstance that the plaintiff received a partial loan from ○○ bank, it does not differ from the repayment of the plaintiff's obligation to the financial institution to ○○ bank. Thus, the entire delay compensation based on the above decision on the performance of the refund in this case constitutes the plaintiff's other income under Article 21 (1) 10 of the former Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the disposition of this case where the non-party company imposed the comprehensive income tax on the whole delay damages on the plaintiff on the premise that the damages for delay in this case is the plaintiff's other income is justified.

3. Conclusion

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