[2] The standard for determining whether an income received by provision of service constitutes business income or other income in an independent qualification

[3] The case holding that where a university professor received lectures from a university university's employees in the course of lectures, which much more than the wage and salary income received from the university, the service performed is not contingent and temporary acts, but continuous and repeated "business lectures" with the aim of earning profits under the social norms, and the service charges equivalent thereto constitute business income

[2] In an independent qualification, whether an income received by a service constitutes a business income or a business income with a temporary nature is not attributable to the form, name, and appearance of a transaction entered into between the parties, but is evaluated according to its substance. The determination shall be based on ordinary social norms, considering the substance of the relevant taxpayer’s vocational activity, the period, frequency, mode, and the other party of the transaction, as well as the continuity and repetition of the activity to the extent that it can be seen as business activity. In making the determination, the determination shall be made in consideration of not only the pertinent activity, which included income, but also all the circumstances before and after the transaction.

[3] The case holding that the service performed by a university professor is not contingent and temporary activity, but a continuous and repeated "business lectures" with the aim of earning profits under the social norms, and the service cost equivalent thereto constitutes business income where the university professor received a much amount of strong fuel income from a university compared to the wage and salary income received from a university

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

A. In 2005, the Plaintiff received lectures from various companies and received lectures from the above companies while serving as professors holding the concurrent office of ○ University in 2005. The Plaintiff reported 6,800,000 won received from ○ University as earned income and reported 75,860,760 won as part of the lecture fees received from the above companies as other income.

B. However, as above, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff’s strong fuel income of KRW 75,860,760, which was reported as other income is not other income but business income. On the other hand, by discovering the fact that the Plaintiff omitted in the global income tax return in 2005, the Plaintiff calculated the total amount of business income as KRW 114,225,318 by calculating the total amount of business income as KRW 114,225,318. On March 7, 2007, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 10,530,120 for global income tax for the year 205 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2-2, Eul evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 7-1, Eul evidence Nos. 11 and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, while serving as professor at ○○ University as a professor at the same time, engaged in social activities by satisfying the social organization called “International Peace Research Institute”. In this regard, upon receiving a demand for lectures from various companies in 2005, the Plaintiff paid the price therefrom. However, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, based on the premise that the Plaintiff’s strong fuel income in 2005 falls under the business income, not the business income, but the typical other income, is unlawful, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s strong fuel income in 2005 constitutes a business income.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

(1) In 2005, 24 companies, including (i) Dominian, from among (ii) 2005, 55,071,80 won received by the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s total amount of 55,071,80 won constitutes business income and withheld income tax and resident tax. However, 40 companies, including (ii) the Jeju Free Economic Institute, including the Plaintiff, withheld income tax on the premise that the total amount of 59,153,518 won received by the Plaintiff was other income. The details of lecture fuels that the Plaintiff paid to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff withheld income tax, etc. in 205

[Detailed Statement of Tuition Fuel Collected as Business Income]

(1)The total amount of 130,000 domestic education center 22,40,000 modern management consulting 2750,000 Korean Industrial Development Institute 5,130,000 Korean Industrial Development Institute 1450,000, 2850,000 Korean Industrial Development Institute 21,40,000 (ju) domestic business education center 21,446,800,000 (ju 110,46,800,000) domestic business education center 13,90,000,000,000 domestic business education center 10,50,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,00,05,00,05,00,00,05,00,05,04,00,05,00,00

[Detailed Statement of Salary Fuel withheld from Other Income]

본문내 포함된 표 업체 상호 지급총액(원) 상호 지급총액(원) (주)현대경제연구 16,800,000 한국평생교육원 1,500,000 상호저축은행중앙회 300,000 서울우유협동조합 1,200,000 서울시의회사무처 600,000 (재)중앙노동경 400,000 구리농협 837,000 (재)중앙노동경 400,000 수지농업협동조합 500,000 도봉구청 1,350,000 신둔농업협동조합 400,000 두산산업개발(주) 732,200 동해농업협동조합 1,000,000 현대자동차(주) 700,000 초월농업협동조합 500,000 (주)21C산업 4,040,000 (주)세계일보 300,000 한국타이어(주) 784,510 (학)연세대학교 700,000 (주)교원나라상호 400,000 (주)이디케이 800,000 동해농업협동조합 1,000,000 (사)한국인간개발 700,000 강릉아산병원 700,000 유한킴벌리(주) 800,000 씨멘스브이디오한 627,610 (사)한국인간개발 2,210,000 삼성에스디아이주식 753,138 (주)현대오토넷 1,000,000 원광대학교 950,000 (주)현대오토넷 1,000,000 여수문화방송(주) 600,000 신둔농업협동조합 400,000 (학)계명대학교 500,000 부천대학 1,046,020 한전기공(주) 울진 600,000 통계청인천통계사무 300,000 노동부지정한국직업 2,040,000 안산공과대학 400,000 안동문화방송(주) 900,000 안산공과대학 400,000 현대자동차(주) 5,648,530 강남대학교 650,000 현대자동차(주) 784,510 미래사회교육개발원 900,000 ？ ？ 지급건수 총 45건, 지급총액 합계 59,153,518원

(2) In addition to the year 2005, the Plaintiff obtained lecture fuel income from several companies during the period from 1993 to 2006, and in particular, the Plaintiff reported the total amount of lecture fuel income as business income during the period from 1993 to 2001. The details thereof are as follows.

The revenue amount of 1930,909,00 30,00,00,000,000 - 1994 -641,440, 2641, 641, 440- - 57,601,500- - 1996 10,806,720646, 20666, 206666, 2076, 2066, 2066, 207, 206, 2066, 206, 2002, 2006, 2000-43, 540, 1996, 1995, 1967, 19640, 207, 306, 306, 207, 2000-430,540, 197

(3) From among the companies that the Plaintiff conducted lectures in 2005, the (main) consortiums Day, the Korea Industrial Development Training Institute, etc. did not have an employment relationship with the Plaintiff as an industrial educational institution providing education to its employees under a contract concluded with the companies. However, the Plaintiff entrusted the Plaintiff with lectures whenever necessary upon receiving a request for planning of educational programs from the customer companies. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was given special lectures on several occasions in terms of leadership and change innovation. On the other hand, in 2005, the frequency of lectures as professors of the ○ University’s concurrent office was limited to once a week.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1-3, Eul evidence 2-2-2-2-5 of Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 7-3-7, Eul evidence 12-2, each of the facts in this court's (main) consortiums and port-to-state Economic Research Institute's inquiry results, the whole arguments, and the purport of arguments

(d) Markets:

(1) Article 19(1)15 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837, Dec. 31, 2005; hereinafter “the Act”) lists income generated from social and private service business as one type of business income. Article 21(1) of the Act provides that “other income shall include income, other than interest income, dividend income, real estate rental income, labor income, temporary property income, retirement income, income, and forestry income, which falls under any of the following subparagraphs.” Article 19 of the Act provides that “The following personal services are provided and received temporarily from a large number of people without employment relations,” and Article 19(1)1 of the same Act provides that “other income continuously generated from the business performance of the above Article 21(1)15 of the Act shall be deemed as falling under the name of the above Article 21(1) of the Act and shall be deemed as falling under the name of the other income clearly generated in the process of business performance and shall be deemed as falling under the name of the above Article 21 of the Act.”

(2) Meanwhile, in an independent qualification as the Plaintiff, whether the Plaintiff constitutes “gravable income” or “other income with a temporary nature” shall not be based on the form, name, and appearance of the transaction entered into between the parties, but shall be evaluated based on the substance of the transaction. The determination shall be based on ordinary social norms, taking into account whether the Plaintiff’s occupational activity is aimed at profit and whether the activity is continuous and repeated to the extent that it can be seen as business activity in light of the substance, duration, frequency, mode, other party, etc. of the transaction, and the determination shall be made by taking into account not only the pertinent activity including income but also all the circumstances before and after it (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du5203, Apr. 24, 201). According to the above reasoning, the Plaintiff’s act of acquiring 200Du5203, supra, was merely a professor holding office at ○ University from 2005 to 200 won, and the Plaintiff’s act of acquiring 100Du685, supra.

3. Conclusion

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

Judge Jeon Sung-soo (Presiding Judge)