Incheon District Court 2010Guu3774 ( October 16, 2012)

early 2010 Heavy0563 (25 October 25, 2010)

any business income other than capital gains, with compensation paid as compensation for business losses;

Compensation is paid as compensation for losses incurred in relation to the furniture manufacturing industry operated by the plaintiff, and it constitutes business income included in the total income, not capital gains.

2012Nu8368 Detailed global income and revocation of disposition

literatureA

the director of the tax office of Western

Incheon District Court Decision 2010Guhap3774 Decided February 16, 2012

June 20, 2012

August 22, 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’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 000 on December 1, 2010 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 201 shall be revoked.

1. The part citing the judgment of the court of first instance

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) whether the instant disposition was legitimate on the grounds of the entry with respect to the instant case; (b) whether the instant compensation is business income; and (c) whether the instant compensation is business income; and (a) whether the relevant legal doctrine (i) whether the instant compensation is business income (from the second to the fifth to the third third) are as follows. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

I would add "703,841,331" (hereinafter referred to as "the issue compensation of this case") in the second half below.

O The following shall be added to the third below 4th:

(3) The instant disposition based on which the Defendant received a reply from an appraisal corporation on the details of compensation, the credibility and rationality of which have not been verified, is contrary to the underlying taxation principle or the substance over form principle.

3rd below the third day. 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' will be added at the end of the judgment in the relevant laws and regulations.

O The fourth first reduction of the compensation in this case is "the compensation in this case" as "the compensation in this case."

2. Part to be used again; and

(B) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, the instant compensation is paid as compensation for losses incurred in relation to the furniture manufacturing business operated by the Plaintiff, and it constitutes business income included in the total amount of income, not capital gains.

① The instant compensation, apart from the compensation for the instant building, is the money that the Plaintiff received as compensation for business losses, etc. for the relocation of the place of business due to the implementation of public works (No. 2 through 7).

② 이 사건 보상금은 ㉠ 휴업기간에 해당하는 영업이익，㉡ 휴업기간 중 고정 비용 및 영업장소를 이전하는 데 따른 부대비용，㉢ 영업시설 이전에 소요되는 비용으로 이루어져 었다(을 제2， 3호증).

(2) Determination on the assertion related to penalty tax

In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims under the tax law, where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as reporting, and tax payment, as prescribed by individual tax-related Acts without justifiable grounds, the imposition of additional tax may be exempted in cases where there are circumstances to deem that the taxpayer was not aware of his/her obligations and that it is unreasonable to expect that the taxpayer would not perform his/her obligations, or that it is unreasonable to expect the party who has fulfilled his/her obligations to do so (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200324089, Apr. 15, 2005). In full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff violated his/her obligations. The Plaintiff already knew that the Plaintiff received compensation for the building and the destination on Aug. 11, 2006 and filed a report on Sept. 26, 2006 through consultation on the land at the destination of the building and destination, and that the Plaintiff had been aware of the details of the instant compensation and paid the instant compensation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006.

(3) Determination as to the assertion of violation of the underlying taxation principle or the substance over form principle

On November 2, 2009, the Plaintiff did not keep a book in accordance with the tax law, such as entering the details of the instant compensation in the course of receiving the instant compensation. The Defendant received the appraisal report from the appraisal corporation on November 2, 2009, which is the basis of the instant compensation, and based on this, deemed the remainder of KRW 00,000, excluding the amount of KRW 00,000, which was the compensation for the assets not yet transferred, as the business income, and did not report the instant disposition (as the result of the appraisal conducted by the appraisal corporation pursuant to the tax law, subparagraph 1 and 2 of the evidence, and the overall purport of the pleadings, and the appraisal details based on the Defendant’s basis, were the result of the appraisal conducted by the appraisal corporation, and did not raise any objection against the results of the appraisal). The instant disposition did not violate the principle

3. Conclusion

The appeal is dismissed.