종합소득세부과처분취소
1. The Defendant reverted to the Plaintiff on October 1, 2016 the global income tax of KRW 11,802,380 (including additional taxes) and the global income tax of KRW 11,802,380 (including additional taxes) for the year 2012.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is the author of a novel, such as “B” and “C.”
The number of criminal complaints filed in the year of 2012 301 41,200,200,200,200,000 41,200,200,000 1,450,450,81,850,200 1,77549,940,940,00 2337,329,329,277,277,329 20154,05252564,156,000 43,212,50,607,607,368,500 6,480,235,70646,607,89,939,639,69,9639,962,9,000,000
B. The Plaintiff: (a) filed a criminal complaint or civil lawsuit claiming compensation for damages against those who posted the said novel on the Internet Carbook or web website in the form of a computer file on the ground of copyright infringement; and (b) received a total of KRW 1,303,695,829 (hereinafter “instant money”) with agreed money, etc. from 2012 to 2015 as indicated below.
C. In December 2015, the Seoul Western District Prosecutors’ Office notified the Commissioner of the National Tax Service that there was a suspicion of omission without filing a report on the Plaintiff’s business income with the agreed amount. The Defendant, on October 1, 2016, deemed the instant amount as business income, deemed it amounting to KRW 11,802,380 (including additional taxes), global income tax for 2012, global income tax for 2013, global income tax for 30,509,730 (including additional taxes), global income tax for 277,509,470 (including additional taxes), global income tax for 2014, global income tax for 2014, global income tax for 225,256,220 (including additional taxes) for 20 years.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
On December 1, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on March 20, 2017.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the parties concerned does not constitute consolation money for mental damage suffered by the Plaintiff, which does not constitute business income as listed in Article 19(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, this case’s claim is based on business income.