Suwon District Court 2013Guhap322, 2013.22

early 2012 Middle 3356 ( October 11, 2012)

The sales promotion fee paid by the plaintiff is the introduction fee paid to transfer the real estate in full, and falls under the necessary expenses of the transferred asset.

The sales promotion fee paid by the Plaintiff is the introduction fee paid to the potential purchaser in order to transfer real estate by explaining the sales plan, location conditions, future development potential, etc. of the land owned by the Plaintiff and inducing the purchase.

Article 64 of the Income Tax Act, Article 163 of the Enforcement Decree thereof

2013Nu2793. Detailed global income and revocation of disposition

United StatesA

The director of the tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Guhap322 Decided August 22, 2013

September 25, 2014

October 16, 2014

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke below shall be revoked.

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax for the year 2009, imposed on the Plaintiff on April 24, 2012 and the imposition of global income tax for the year 2010, each of which exceeds the OOO of global income tax for the year 2010.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. One-third of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant's imposition disposition of the global income tax for the plaintiff on April 24, 2012 and the global income tax for the year 2010 shall be revoked (the plaintiff corrected the global income tax amount for the year 2010 at the appellate court as above).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) whether the instant disposition is legitimate; (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion; and (b) the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from the second to fourth, and up to the seventh) is identical to that of the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; (d) the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts used for cutting.

O 3rd part of the 3rd part of the OOO is moving into OOO.

O The following shall be added from the third bottom to the following:

Even if the sales promotion cost paid by the Plaintiff to the sales members does not constitute the brokerage cost, it falls under the expenses similar to the expenses prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance under Article 163 (5) 1 (a) through (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and thus, it should be deducted as necessary expenses, but the disposition of this case without deducting it is unlawful.

A. On December 28, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased 3,388 square meters prior to 298 OB from KimB, an O-Eup OB from OB, and sold 10 parcels among them by dividing it into 11, and selling 10 parcels to 10 members, such as KimCC, for the period from March 26, 2010 to October 22, 2010, 27 parcels of land (a total of 21,24 square meters) and 41 parcels of land (a total of 9,370 square meters) in 2010, and sold 42 parcels of land in installments after purchasing 68 parcels of land (a total of 9,370 square meters).

B. In order to sell a large number of land partitioned as above, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the seller (No. 3-2).

C. The sales workers who entered into a service contract with the Plaintiff are phone calls from a large number of people who grasp their telephone numbers through the buster, telephone number number, etc. to explain the location of the land owned by the Plaintiff, future potential for development, conditions of sales, etc., and introduce the land owned by the Plaintiff and respond to the questions in a series of times for those who have shown interest. At the same time, they directly visited those who have shown interest and explain more detailed contents of the land owned by the Plaintiff.

D. As a sales promotion fee, the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff’s basic service fee proportional to the number of working days and time, and the amount equivalent to a certain percentage (1.6% to 10%) of the sales price after the Plaintiff’s land was sold as the sales promotion fee. The sales promotion fee paid as above is an OOO in 2009 and OOO in 2010.

E. The Plaintiff withheld and paid business income tax on sales promotion fees paid to the sales employees from the sales employees.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 12, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Determination

According to the above facts, ① sales promotion expenses paid by the Plaintiff are expenses paid to the potential purchaser to explain the sale plan, location conditions, future development potential, etc. of the Plaintiff’s land and induce purchase. ② In the event that a large scale of land, such as the instant land, is sold in multiple parcels, it is difficult to find the original seller so that it is difficult to find out the sales contract, and thus, it is necessary to conduct the above sales promotion activities through a large number of sales personnel. For this purpose, it can be said that the nature of the transaction differs from the mere real estate brokerage. ③ Even if the other party to the explanation and purchase inducement is not a specific person, if the sales promotion expenses paid by the Plaintiff are used to transfer the Plaintiff’s land to a large number of unspecified persons, it is reasonable to view that the sales promotion expenses paid by the Plaintiff are included in the sales promotion expenses directly paid by the Plaintiff to transfer the Plaintiff’s land. ③ Even if the sales promotion expenses paid by the Plaintiff are more than the ordinary brokerage fees for real estate acquisition, it is reasonable to deem the sales promotion expenses paid by the Plaintiff to be the sales promotion expenses paid by the Plaintiff’s.

Therefore, if a reasonable tax amount is calculated by including sales promotion expenses paid by the Plaintiff as necessary expenses, the portion exceeding the legitimate tax amount among the disposition in this case’s global income tax imposition disposition for the year 2009 and the global income tax for the year 2010, as shown in the separate sheet of account, shall be revoked, as well as the portion of the disposition in this case’s global income tax imposition for the year 2009 and the global income tax for the year 2010.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as without any justifiable reason. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, the plaintiff's appeal shall be partially accepted, and the part against the plaintiff which orders cancellation under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. Among the disposition of this case, the part of the disposition of global income tax for the year 2009 and the disposition of global income tax for the year 2010 shall be revoked, which exceeds