Plaintiff (Law Firm Jinjin, Attorneys Kim Min-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

June 18, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 42,622,680 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Notwithstanding the fact that the Plaintiff is deemed as the president of the ○○○○○○ apartment rebuilding improvement project association (hereinafter “instant association”), on July 7, 2008, the Plaintiff was convicted of the Defendant on April 9, 2010 in the Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2009Da348, 2009Gohap373 (Merger) (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the Plaintiff’s appeal became final and conclusive on September 29, 2010 in the instant case, which was the appellate court’s Seoul High Court Decision 2010No1065, Dec. 23, 2010.

B. On September 1, 2012, the Defendant determined and notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax of KRW 42,622,680 for the year 2008, according to the final judgment of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the instant judgment, the Plaintiff was subject to collection of KRW 88 million in the amount of acceptance of bribe, and in particular, KRW 50 million received from Nonparty 1, and returned to Nonparty 3, who was the sender, on September 11, 2009, all of which were returned, the instant disposition was eventually illegal against the Plaintiff who did not have real income.

B. Determination

(1) Even if an illegal income from a criminal act is illegal, it constitutes taxable income (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu136, Oct. 25, 1983). On the other hand, even if a person to whom the income tax liability is established has returned to the original state, it may not affect the tax liability already incurred (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du3324, Sept. 14, 2001).

(2) In the judgment of this case, even if the judgment of this case was sentenced to a surcharge of KRW 88 million, it cannot be deemed that the income of KRW 88 million was returned to the original reversion solely for such reasons. In addition, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was made, the time when the Plaintiff returned KRW 50 million to Nonparty 1 through Nonparty 3, the time when the Plaintiff returned the income of KRW 50 million to Nonparty 1 through Nonparty 3, which was the time when the global income tax was established in 2008, was on September 11, 2009, which was the time when December 31, 2008, which was the time when the said return was made. Accordingly, even in the case of the above return disposition, it cannot affect the global income tax liability

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Su-cheon (Presiding Judge)