Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap78250 (O2, 2016)

The income of this case constitutes a brokerage fee or honorarium for stock and management acquisition;

The reason why the Plaintiff was involved in the instant underwriting contract is that it is not because the Plaintiff had professional knowledge or special function on the acquisition of stocks and management rights, but was well aware of the circumstances of the company as the head of the research institute of BB and its officers. Thus, the instant income falls under the brokerage commission or honorarium.

Article 21 (Other Incomes) of the Income Tax Act

2016Nu6690 and revocation of the detailed global income and disposition

Plaintiff (Appellant)

SAA

Defendant (Appellant)

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

December 15, 2016

January 12, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

the Gu Office's place of service and place of service

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The part of the Defendant’s global income tax of 280,503,000 won (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on November 11, 2014, which exceeds 54,768,048 won, shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of the court is as follows: “It is difficult to view it as other income” in Part 6, Section 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and, in addition to adding “(the same shall apply even if the statement of evidence No. 24, No. 36 of the judgment of the court of first instance additionally submitted at the court of first instance is taken)”, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it is cited in accordance

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.