Incheon District Court 2010Guhap812 (O1, 2011)

Cho High Court Decision 2009J301 ( November 20, 2009)

It shall be deemed that the amount paid to reduce the damage suffered due to the delay of the reconstruction project is a honorarium.

Since the purchase party of the apartment of this case from the plaintiff is a reconstruction association, the payment of money to the plaintiff is expected to reduce or prevent losses incurred to the public in XX due to delay in reconstruction, etc., and therefore, the amount paid should be viewed as a honorarium.

2011Nu10715 global income and revocation of disposition

Republic of Korea

The Director of Incheon Tax Office

Incheon District Court Decision 2010Guhap812 Decided February 11, 2011

May 23, 2012

June 20, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 000 on June 4, 2009 against the plaintiff on June 4, 2009.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why this Court is used for this case are as follows. The reasons for the judgment of the court of the first instance shall be as follows: Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

O 3, 12, and 13 are added to the column for second 15th [based on recognition].

O's second 20th 20 won is '00 won'.

In addition, from the 12th to the 17th day of the 3th day, the following amounts:

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

From the fifth nineth day to the 12th day, the following amounts are met:

8) On September 11, 2007, the Plaintiff received KRW 000 after deducting taxes from the condition that the documents on the registration of ownership transfer for the instant apartment are delivered to the reconstruction association between the 0AA, a general director of the reconstruction association and the head of the Y public head of the housing, and received KRW 000 after deducting taxes from the public in XX on the date of the contract. The remaining KRW 00 was agreed to receive payment from the reconstruction association after the completion of the registration of ownership transfer as the reconstruction association.

O The following shall be added to the sixth first reduction:

13) According to the terms and conditions of a reconstruction project contract concluded between a reconstruction association and a public building association on June 2, 2005, the public building agreed to lend to a reconstruction association the cost of design service, removal and disposal of residuals, the cost of specialized management of rearrangement projects, etc. (Article 16) and the cost of operation of a reconstruction association to a reconstruction association with no interest rate of up to six months after the date of designation of occupancy (Article 19), and to lend some relocation expenses to the members of the association at no interest rate.

On January 17, 2006, the x public service extended to the reconstruction association the obligation to move and remove obstacles as stipulated in the construction contract, resulting in prolonged recovery of all the project costs and moving expenses invested by the public x, resulting in enormous trouble in the progress of the project, and submitted a document (A-26) stating that overdue interest is to be claimed for the period corresponding to the delay in moving and removing obstacles.

O's 6th two pages (based on recognition) add 'A' No. 16 to the column.

O The 6th 15th son is moving 'the 6th 15th son' to 'the project expenses of the reconstruction association, the moving expenses of the association members, etc.'.

O's 'the purpose of the entire argument' from the seventh bottom to the ‘the whole purport of argument' is ‘the whole purpose of pleading'.

2. Determination on the assertion added in the trial

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Even if the funds of this case were to be paid in return for the Plaintiff’s prompt transfer of the apartment of this case to the reconstruction association to cooperate with the reconstruction association for the progress of the reconstruction project, there is no obligation to cooperate with the Plaintiff for the progress of the reconstruction association’s project in addition to transferring the ownership of the apartment of this case to the reconstruction association. The funds of this case paid in return for the cooperation with the progress of the project by transferring the apartment of this case

B. Determination

Since the Plaintiff purchased the apartment of this case from the Plaintiff as a reconstruction association, there is no reason to pay the Plaintiff the purchase price of the apartment of this case. The payment of the instant money to the Plaintiff is to reduce or prevent damages incurred to the Plaintiff due to delay in reconstruction projects. According to the testimony of the witness at the trial, there is no fact that the reconstruction association covered the instant money to the XX public. It is reasonable to view the instant money as an honorarium.

3. Conclusion

The appeal is dismissed.