계속적·반복적으로 이루어진 특허권대여료 수입은 사업소득에 해당함[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap6015 ( November 14, 2014)
The income from patent rental fees continuously and repeatedly consisting of business income.
(1) The term of a patent lease contract is extended in the same way as the term of a contract is extended for a period of one to two years. Thus, the term of a patent lease contract of this case constitutes a case where the service is provided continuously and repeatedly.
Article 19 of the Income Tax Act
2014Nu72493 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.
KimA
Head of Seodaemun Tax Office
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap60115 decided November 14, 2014
July 23, 2015
August 20, 2015
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Purport of claim
The Defendant confirms that the imposition of the OO of the value-added tax (including additional tax) on January 2006, 206, among the respective imposition dispositions stated in the attached Form 'the details of the imposition of the tax imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff. The imposition of the value-added tax on February 2, 2006 through February 2012, and the imposition of the global income tax on December 3, 2008 through 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "amount of the corrected tax") is revoked (the amount of the tax stated in the "amount of the corrected tax"). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24673, Aug. 3, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 24670, Aug. 15, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 24680, Aug. 10, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 24680, Aug. 10, 2013>
2. Purport of appeal
The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. Each disposition of imposition of value-added tax for February 2, 2006 through February 2, 2012, and the disposition of imposition of global income tax for 2008 through 2012, shall be revoked.
1. Scope of adjudication of this court;
As stated in the purport of the claim, the Plaintiff filed a claim for nullification of the imposition of value-added tax for 19,98,060 among the imposition of global income tax for 206 or 2012 and the imposition of global income tax for 2008 or 2012, which the Defendant made against the Plaintiff, and filed a claim for revocation of the remaining imposition of value-added tax for 19,998,060 among them. The court of first instance confirmed that the imposition of value-added tax for 2006 or 2006 is null and void, and declared that all of the claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed. Accordingly, the Defendant did not file an appeal against the winning portion of the Plaintiff, and thus, the subject of the judgment of this Court is limited to the imposition of value-added tax for 206 or 2012 or the imposition of global income tax for 208 or 2012.
2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
This court's decision is identical to the corresponding part of the first instance court's decision (the imposition disposition of value-added tax for February through February 2006 and the imposition disposition of global income tax for year 2008 through year 2012) except for adding "No.4" to "No.4," under Article 9 of the first instance court's decision No. 19 of the same Act. Thus, this court's decision is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Conclusion
The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.