Plaintiff (Law Firm member, Attorneys Kim Yong-type, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Future Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Byung-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2008Gahap15445 Decided June 10, 2010

November 10, 2010

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 35,00,000 won with 20% interest per annum from April 20, 2010 to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning concerning this case is as follows: ① The court's reasoning is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases: ① the 10th to 10th to 13th to 10th to 15, and 16th to 10th to 10th to 16th to 10th to 10th to 16th to 10th to

Article 21 (1) 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "the penalty and compensation" under Article 21 (7) 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall be "the compensation for damages caused by breach or termination of a contract on property" as "the compensation for damages caused by breach or termination of a contract on property" shall not be subject to the income tax if the monetary claim itself is not subject to the income tax, such as damages or consolation money due to infringement of non-property interest such as life or body, or family rights, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da31672 delivered on June 26, 2008). Thus, the insurance proceeds under each insurance contract of this case shall not be subject to the income tax if it is not subject to the income tax (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da31672 delivered on June 26, 2008). Thus, the defendant's assertion that the damages caused by the physical injury, which is directly caused by traffic disaster, shall not be subject to the income tax."

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Han-ju (Presiding Judge)