Plaintiff (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Kim U-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Suwon Tax Office

November 23, 2011

Busan District Court Decision 2011Guhap502 Decided June 17, 2011

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 imposition of global income tax of KRW 55,672,050 against the Plaintiff on February 1, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. The issues of the instant case and the judgment of the first instance court

A. The issues of the instant case

The issues of this case, which were arranged in the proceedings of the first instance trial and the party hearing, are whether the plaintiff can regard the income of this case as other income in the real estate compulsory auction case at Busan District Court 2007Ttata-4843, and whether the imposition of additional tax is legitimate in this case.

B. First Instance Judgment

After recognizing the facts of the judgment, the first instance court determined as follows: "A settlement in the lawsuit made by Busan District Court 86Gahap1653, the plaintiff's right succeeded by testamentary gift constitutes a contract on property, and the right and obligation is a right and obligation under a settlement contract and the right and obligation to claim the transfer of ownership or the right to share the purchase price." The income of this case additionally received due to the failure of payment (the disposal price of each real estate), which is stipulated in the settlement contract of this case, is monetary compensation for damages exceeding the amount equivalent to the disposal price of real estate which is the contents of the settlement contract of this case, and thus constitutes other income (the income of this case is compensation for nonperformance of obligation under the settlement contract of this case). In addition, in light of the purpose of tax law, it cannot be deemed as a justifiable reason to neglect reporting and payment on the ground that the income of this case does not result from a settlement contract of this case."

2. The judgment of this Court and the citing the judgment of the first instance court

A. The judgment of this Court

The plaintiff basically repeats the same argument in the first instance trial. Even in light of the plaintiff's assertion partially supplemented, it is reasonable to see the income of this case as compensation for damages due to the non-performance of obligation under the distribution agreement under the settlement agreement of this case. Further, it is difficult to see that there exists a justifiable ground for the plaintiff's failure to report and pay, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, the first instance judgment on the above issue is justifiable.

B. Quotation of judgment of the court of first instance

Therefore, the reason why the court uses this case is the same as the entry in the column of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is with this conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)