The time when the amount of fees related to registration delegation contract and removal lawsuit is reverted to the revenue amount of the fees;

The most of the amounts received under the implied delegation contract is deemed to have been paid under the name of the attorney-at-law fee for the lawsuit. However, it is lawful to regard the time when the income accrues as the time when the need to perform the lawsuit becomes unnecessary.

Article 24 (Calculation of Gross Income Amount)

Article 48 (Receipt Date of Business Income)

1. The disposition of imposition of KRW 23,607,280 on global income tax for the year 2000 imposed on the Plaintiff on May 15, 2006 by the head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City and KRW 23,607,280 on the Plaintiff on May 15, 2006 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 9, 1995, the Plaintiff, an attorney-at-law who opened a law office and operates an attorney-at-law business, paid 380,000,000 won for expenses incurred in relation to the registration delegation contract (hereinafter referred to as "registration delegation contract amount") and for the preliminary injunction against the transfer of possession and the claim for the transfer of site (hereinafter referred to as "the dispute claim amount") with respect to the business of constructing and selling apartment on the land of Daejeon ○○○○-dong, ○○-47, and 69 parcels (hereinafter referred to as "○ quasi-construction"), but did not report the remaining amount after deducting 61,818,000 won from some of them at the time of global income tax return in 200.

B. The head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office (hereinafter referred to as the "head of Dongjak-gu") issued a notice of correction of the global income tax amount of 404,124,910 won for the Plaintiff on May 15, 2006, on the ground that ○ Quasi-Construction paid the Plaintiff the amount of the registration delegation fee and the key issue as the attorney’s fee (hereinafter referred to as “the attorney’s fee on cash and cash payment in 000,000,”) but on August 17, 2000, a request for the return of the dispute was made (hereinafter referred to as “request for the return of dispute”). However, on May 15, 2006, the head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office (hereinafter referred to as the “head of Dongjak-gu”) issued a notice of correction of the resident tax amount of 10% for the year 200, 412,490 won for the income tax (hereinafter referred to as the “instant original disposition”).

C. Meanwhile, around May 2005, ○ Quasi-Construction filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the return of the amount of the registered delegation contract (hereinafter referred to as "related civil lawsuit") with the Seoul Central District Court (2005Gahap38497) and received a favorable judgment from the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2006Na24843) on November 15, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "related civil judgment"), and the above judgment became final and conclusive around April 2007.

D. In accordance with the relevant civil judgment, the Plaintiff returned registration delegation contract amount and damages for delay thereof to ○ Quasi-Construction. On June 13, 2008, the head of Dongjak District Tax Office corrected that the Defendant’s head of Dongjak District Tax Office excluded respectively the portion corresponding to the registration delegation contract amount from the original disposition of this case on October 23, 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). (The disposition of imposition of KRW 236,072,80 and resident tax of KRW 23,607,280 for the remainder of the year when the reduction was corrected as above in the original disposition of this case and KRW 23,607,280 for the resident tax of 200 for the year when the reduction was corrected.)

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-1 through 2-4, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 9-1, 9-2, 10-1, 10-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The nature of the issue amount

The key amount is not a lawyer's fee. In other words, the key amount was that ○ Quasi-Construction paid to the Plaintiff as advance payment along with the registration delegation contract amount in order to promote the key development project, and the key amount was that the Plaintiff has the nature of advance payment to settle and return the key amount to ○ Quasi-Construction.

(ii) the time of completing the provision of services;

The Plaintiff’s service is not completed on August 17, 200, when the Plaintiff requested the return of the issue. The clients of the lawsuit are not ○ quasi-construction, but the owner of the apartment site. The Plaintiff did not request the suspension of the lawsuit from the owners of the apartment site, and the Plaintiff continued the lawsuit in fact even after the request for the return of the issue. In addition, the request for the return of the issue is limited to sending one of the joint representative directors of ○ quasi-Construction, and even after the request for the return of the issue, ○○○, a sole representative director of ○ quasi-Construction, demanded the Plaintiff to continuously perform the lawsuit at issue and sell a written decision in the lawsuit at issue to a third party. In other words, around 2002, the Plaintiff continued to perform the lawsuit for the purpose of ○ quasi-Construction and the landowner until the third party excluded the construction of ○○ Construction and the construction of a sub-construction project from the construction of a sub-construction project for the issue.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 24 (Calculation of Gross Income Amount)

Article 48 (Receipt Date of Business Income)

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged either as a dispute between the parties or as a whole with respect to each of the above acknowledged evidence and evidence of Nos. 3, 5 through 20, as stated in Nos. 7, 8, 11 through 17, a witness Lee Dong-gu, and a part of the testimony of Maul.

1) Circumstances leading up to the establishment of ○ Quasi-Construction and the promotion of key development projects

A) Conclusion of delegation agreements between the Plaintiff and Park ○-in

(1) On September 27, 1999, Park ○-han promoted the instant development project and became difficult to implement the project due to the shortage of funds, and entered into an agreement with the Defendant, an attorney-at-law, to attract investments and enter into a sales contract for the said land, but to pay KRW 400 million in advance and one apartment bond, which is the subject of the instant project, as remuneration (hereinafter referred to as “basic agreement between the Plaintiff and Park ○-in”), and did not pay KRW 400 million in advance.

(2) Meanwhile, in addition to the above basic agreement between the Plaintiff on the same day, Park Jong-ok entered into a delegation contract with the Plaintiff to return the start amount after deducting the cost if the development project is completed by setting the start amount as KRW 200 million. However, in the event that the development project is not implemented due to a special agreement, the Plaintiff entered into a delegation contract with the Plaintiff to return the start amount after deducting the cost to investors (hereinafter referred to as the "registration delegation contract"), and entered into a delegation contract with the Plaintiff to delegate the litigation on the removal, etc. of the building without permission on the site of the project at issue (hereinafter referred to as the "instant delegation contract"), but the special agreement on the return, such as the registration delegation contract, was not stipulated in the registration delegation contract and the litigation delegation contract at issue, and Park Jong-ok did not pay the start amount of the above contract.

B) Conclusion of establishment and investment-related contracts, etc. of 00 quasi-construction

(1) In order to invest in the development project at the Plaintiff’s recommendation, the Plaintiff asserted that, rather than directly investing in Park ○-do, the establishment of a separate company and the investment in the company for the implementation of the key development project was made on December 6, 199, ○-do Construction was established, and the lebdo and Park ○-do were assigned to the joint representative director.

(2) On February 28, 200, with respect to the investment of the Plaintiff and Park Jong-chul, a contract with the following terms and conditions (hereinafter referred to as “investment-related contract”) was entered into between the Plaintiff and Park Jong-chul. The main contents are as follows:

(A) A contract between Maul and Maul

(1) The ○○ and Park ○ shall establish a new corporation suitable for the implementation of the instant project and execute the said project as a joint representative.

(2) 55% of the shares of ○ Quasi-Construction shall be allocated to ○○, while 35% of the shares shall be allocated to ○○.

(3) Every ○○○ shall lend the required cost of KRW 2.2 billion to a new corporation, and Park ○ shall be responsible for purchasing the project site, relocating tenants in the project site, etc., entering into a construction contract with one military construction enterprise, granting authorization and permission from the competent authority, and entering into a trust contract.

④ In order to guarantee the claim against KRW 2 billion out of KRW 2.2 billion loaned by ○○○○, Park Jong-dae shall set up a provisional disposition and a right to collateral security on the other site in order to secure the claim against KRW 2 billion, and deliver to ○○○○○, a written statement of assignment of all the shares held by ○○○○ and a written statement of refund of KRW 200 million in the design contract amount, and a contract agent shall deliver a written return agreement to ○○○○○.

(5) Where ○○ fails to perform his/her duty, he/she shall transfer all of his/her stocks to ○○○ without undergoing the settlement process, and retire from his/her position as an executive officer.

(3) On February 28, 200, on which the date when the investment-related contract was concluded, the agreement (hereinafter referred to as "agreement for the return of the registration delegation contract") was made between the Plaintiff and the leapnnnnnn. The agreement states that "A and leapnnnn (hereinafter referred to as "the agreement for the return of the registration delegation contract") shall be agreed as follows and shall be performed in good faith in good faith in accordance with the good faith principle. ② A shall receive KRW 200 million registration delegation contract amount from 00 million upon entering into the contract for the purchase of the site for the development project at issue at issue at the time of the conclusion of the contract for the development project at issue, and ③ the said contract deposit shall be returned to B after deducting various expenses such as the application for provisional disposition, the settlement of mortgage, etc. when it is impossible to proceed with the project at issue from the pertinent government office, ④ immediately after the implementation of the development project at issue with the approval of the pertinent government office, and Eul shall lose the validity of this agreement, and Park ○

C) Purchase of project sites

(1) On March 1, 200, 000, ○○○○ Branch Co., Ltd. (hereinafter Nonparty clan) entered into a sales contract with the Daejeon ○○○-dong ○○-47, and paid KRW 10,80,60,000 as down payment, for the purchase of 10,806,60,00 won for ○○○-dong ○○-dong ○-dong ○-dong ○7, which is the site for the development project (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

(2) According to the above sales contract, ○ Quasi-Construction is responsible for the removal of ground on the above land and compensation for relocated residents, and ○ Quasi-Construction is able to rescind a contract without any condition until October 31, 2000, which is the date of the intermediate payment payment, when it is impossible to implement the pertinent development project or when it is subject to the cancellation of the construction of an apartment or the disposal by an administrative agency.

2) Payment of registration delegation contract amount and key amount

A) On March 2, 200, the following day after the conclusion of the sales contract between ○○ Construction and the non-party clans, the Plaintiff’s office reported on the conclusion of the above sales contract to the Plaintiff, which is the joint representative director of ○○ Construction and the accounting division. In this regard, the Plaintiff demanded the immediate payment of KRW 580 million under the name of the registration delegation contract, etc., and the Plaintiff refused the payment on the ground that there was no reason to pay the above amount. The Plaintiff told the key development project itself.

B) Accordingly, this ○○-gu explained the circumstances by telephone to the ○○○○, and the ○○-gu directly made the Plaintiff and made a telephone call, and the 5.8 million won was demanded to be paid to this ○-gu. The ○○-gu withdrawn 5.8 million won from ○○ Bank’s deposit account in the name of ○○ Construction on the same day as a check and delivered it to the Plaintiff on the same day. The Plaintiff respectively made and issued a receipt with ○-○ as a recipient, 20 million won, 380 million won, 380 million won, 40 million won, 380 million won, 40 million won, 50 million won, 50 million won, and 50 million won, respectively, as a result of the order of ○○-do.

3) Demand for return of issues and removal from office for gambling

A) On August 11, 200, Park Jong-ok returned to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 580,000,000,000,000,000, in the name of ○○○ Joint Construction Co., Ltd. to us for the dispute development project, for the purpose of the dispute development project, the project is delayed due to our circumstances, but us requested the return of us that she will pay the cost for the preservation registration and the provisional disposition for the transfer of possession (hereinafter “the first request for return”), and on August 17, 2000, again requested the return of the amount of the contract for the registration to the Plaintiff, and on August 17, 200, the Plaintiff requested that the return of the amount of the contract for the provisional disposition for the prohibition of the transfer of possession and the claim for the transfer of land and the amount of KRW 380,000,000,000,000,000 to us have to keep as above, and thus, us returned to us.”

B) On the other hand, in the event that Park ○-han failed to enter into a construction contract with a single-class construction company and failed to receive a loan from a financial institution, and thus it was impossible to pay investment money or dividends, the Plaintiff and Yoon ○-do dismissed Park as an officer of ○○ Construction on September 8, 200, and ○○○ acquired the entire ○-style construction shares held by Park ○-gun.

4) Circumstances after the Plaintiff’s performance of the lawsuit and the cancellation of the sales contract

A) In order to implement the key development project, the Plaintiff began to proceed with the litigation by receiving a letter of delegation from the members of the clan who trusted the title of ownership from the non-party to the clan, and filing an application for civil conciliation for removal, etc. of approximately 120 households among the unauthorized buildings of about 180 households on the site of the key development project. However, according to the contents of the sales contract at issue, the non-party clan was not fully paid the costs

B) On the other hand, ○○ Construction, as seen above, did not enter into a construction contract with one-class construction company and did not obtain permission from the competent authorities, and thus, made it clear whether the implementation of the key development project was carried out or not, the sales contract was cancelled on October 24, 200, prior to October 31, 2000, which was the time limit for cancellation of the sales contract.

C) Even after the cancellation of the sales contract at issue, the non-party clan did not refund the down payment pursuant to the sale and purchase agreement, and the non-party clan Construction brought an action against the non-party clan claiming the refund of the down payment under the sales contract at issue ( Daejeon District Court Decision 2000Gahap11359, hereinafter referred to as "the lawsuit claiming the return of the down payment"), and around August 2002, when the lawsuit was pending at the appellate court, the non-party clan (the representative director of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○ Company) was offered a proposal for the sales contract with the non-party clan 8.8 billion won in total, on the condition of the cost of the relevant lawsuit, such as removal of unauthorized buildings, as in the sales contract from the non-party clan, and agreed to sell the 110 households to the ○○ Technology Investment Company, including the court's resolution and the claim for the refund of the down payment to the non-party of ○○ Construction's non-party.

D) On November 30, 2001, the Plaintiff continued to hold a lawsuit in the name of the clan members of the non-party clan, and the non-party clan also knew that the Plaintiff continued the lawsuit. On November 30, 2001, the Plaintiff sent a notice stating that the details of the case and the case number are known to the Plaintiff.

E) On August 202, 2002, among them, ○○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○”) asserted that ○○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. took over the business rights of the development project subject to “the relocation of the site for the development project and the completion of the lawsuit for removal” from the representative of ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., and, on October 22, 2002, ○○○○○ Bank received large-scale funds from ○○○ Bank, ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., agreed on a lawsuit for the refund of the purchase price and had Nonparty clan withdraw the appeal. At the same time, around April 16, 2003, ○○○○ Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○”) received a lawsuit for the removal of the building without permission from ○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., to the effect that ○○○ branch, without the consent of the head office, received the above KRW 5.

(v) the progress of relevant civil action;

A) On May 2005, ○ Quasi-Construction filed a related civil suit against the Plaintiff at the Seoul Central District Court (2005Gahap38497). From the appellate trial (Seoul High Court 2006Na24843) to November 15, 2006, the Plaintiff’s registration delegation contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and Park ○○. In the relevant civil lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserted that ○ quasi-Construction was not a party to the contract. However, in light of the overall circumstances such as the process of concluding the contract between the Plaintiff and Park ○○, the process of concluding the investment-related contract between the Plaintiff and Park ○○, and the process of establishing the ○○ quasi-Construction, the Plaintiff concluded a registration delegation contract with the Plaintiff, and accordingly, the Plaintiff concluded a registration delegation contract with the Plaintiff on the ground that the contract was rescinded for the cancellation of the registration delegation contract with the Plaintiff.

B) Meanwhile, ○ Quasi-Construction did not claim the return of the key amount in the relevant civil procedure to the Plaintiff.

C) In this Court, ○○○○○ Construction, the representative director of ○ Quasi-Construction, stated to the effect that “The amount of dispute shall be returned to the Plaintiff as “storage money,” but the Plaintiff was forced to bring a lawsuit for partial removal, so whether or not to bring a lawsuit for return was not determined,” and that “○ Quasi-Construction demanded the Plaintiff to suspend the lawsuit at issue after the cancellation of the contract for sale of the issue, but the Plaintiff voluntarily proceeded with the lawsuit.”

D. Determination

1) The nature of the issue amount

The key issue is that ○○○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. received an advance payment or money to be settled with ○○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. under the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., and ○○○○○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., and ○○○○○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., which was the chief of the accounting department, stated that the amount of money to be deposited in this court is “the amount to be returned to the Plaintiff.” However, the following circumstances revealed in the above facts, i.e., the Plaintiff’s basic agreement between ○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., and ○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the Plaintiff’s investment-related investment-related contract between the Plaintiff and ○○○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., which was not a separate one, and the Plaintiff’s investment-related contract between the Plaintiff and ○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., and the key issue is found.

2) The receipt date of the issue amount

Article 48 (8) 8 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17825 of Dec. 30, 2002) provides that the time of receipt of the total amount of business income from the provision of personal services shall be the date of completion of the provision of services.

Therefore, the Defendant alleged that the provision of services related to the issue was completed at the time of request for return of the issue. However, the following circumstances revealed in the above recognition, namely, ① ○○ Construction was established by a series of agreements between ○○○ and the Plaintiff for the implementation of the issue development project, ② ○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. concluded a sales contract with Nonparty 2 by understanding the key factors necessary for the implementation of the issue development project, ② ○○ Construction Co., Ltd.’s duty and need to proceed with the issue at the expense of ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., and ③ ○○○ Construction Co., Ltd.’s first request for return was made in the name of ○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd.’s name even after ○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd.’s initial request for return, and, even after ○○ Construction Co., Ltd.’s initial request for return, the Plaintiff did not request the return of all of the issue to the Plaintiff to the effect that it did not request the return of the issue.

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, even if the issue amount is the business income from the provision of personal services, since the Plaintiff’s provision of services cannot be deemed to have been completed on August 2000 when the request for return of issues was made, the disposition of this case by the Defendants, premised on the fact that the issue amount was received as income for the year 2000 by the Plaintiff, should be revoked as it is unlawful without further review.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.