Whether the Plaintiff’s income received from the corporation of this case is the time of attribution, earned income, or other income

In determining the period of attribution of income under the Income Tax Act, the period of attribution shall be determined on the basis of whether it has been mature and confirmed to the extent that the possibility of realizing the income is considerably high in consideration of the management and control of income, the degree of the objective of income generated, and the timing of securing the taxpayer's money. It is reasonable to see that the plaintiff received the income of this case as the adjustment of income of

Article 20 of the Income Tax Act, Article 21 of the Income Tax Act

District Court-2015-Guhap-560 (2017.09.13)

At the time of the agreement, the maturity and confirmation of the amount of the issue amount is considerably high.

As such, the global income tax return for the year 2012, included in the income in 2012, was filed.

The rejection disposition of each of the plaintiffs' requests for correction is illegal.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Each of the evidence mentioned above, set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 14, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 7, and before the oral argument

Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole the purport of the body, the key amount of the issue shall be in its nature;

Not only income but also income feasibility is mature and confirmed by the conciliation procedure in this case.

As income attribution period is the year 2012, each claim for correction of this case is rejected.

Sector is legitimate and the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

1) The right confirmation principle, the principle of determining the time of attribution of income under the Income Tax Act, is a taxation income.

income for the pertinent year, unless realized, shall be deemed to have income at the time of the occurrence of the right; and

calculated on the assumption that the income substantially is to be realized in the future;

Although it is the principle that allows taxation at the interest rate, the concept of "determined" in such a right confirmation principle, and the concept of "determined" cannot be defined as the general principle that does not apply to the time of attribution of income, and the body is not the body.

management and control of income, the degree of the objective of income generated, and the probability of taxpayers' payments in respect of such matters.

Even if the income is realized by taking into account the time, etc., the maturity and probability of such income are considerably high.

Based on whether the time of attribution has been determined, the time of attribution should be determined (Supreme Court Decision 196 June 13, 1997).

Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu19154 Decided July 9, 2002; 2001Du809 Decided July 9, 2002; and 30 September 30, 2010

High Court Decision 2010Du9617, etc.

2) The Plaintiffs’ instant agreement provides labor to CCC by providing the Plaintiffs, etc. with labor during that period.

The timing, etc. for payment of the price of the already withdrawn performance shall be determined, and a position in office shall be held.

Subject to the premise that it constitutes a kind of remuneration for directors paid in compensation for non-execution, the amount of issue shall be the plaintiff

of this case’s agreement is prepared and the provision of labor has been made; and

The claim in 2007 is the nature of the key amount in determining the time of attribution of the key amount.

(whether it is a earned income or other income) must be identified first, and this is immediately a summary of this case.

Since it is connected to the nature of justice, it is examined.

Article 1 of the Agreement of this case, “A (CCC)”, at the time of the company’s separation, made a verbal promise

Recognizing general matters, EE 1.2 billion won, Plaintiffs, as prescribed successful compensation.

shall be one billion won each (hereinafter referred to as "the initial amount of this case") and the EE needs to be paid.

When recognizing that there is an agreement that each of the plaintiffs shall pay Gap additional KRW 200 million to Eul.

For this reason, CCC's name of the money that it shall pay to the plaintiffs is called 'official compensation' under the agreement of this case.

Article 2, which provides for the time for payment, also stipulates that KRW 200 million shall not be later than December 31, 2007.

The agreement of this case provides that "the balance of KRW 1 billion shall be paid in principle from 2008 to 2008 or every half year in accordance with the terms and conditions of the fund."

CCC around October 2007, which was at the time of preparation, as part of the development of ○○ Tourist Zone, is a golf course, etc.

Loan obligations received for theory and the obligation for the construction cost for the Corporation, and is financial

The situation has not been brupt and the plaintiffs were also aware of it, and the development of ○○ Tourism Zone

The project has not been conducted beyond the middle level, and the Agreement of this case including the plaintiffs was not conducted.

When the parties are in office in the CCC, they shall compensate the CCC for the success in accordance with the instant agreement.

The failure of subsequent sale and the difficulty in raising funds after the non-request for payment has been increased.

As the Dobong Tourism Development Project was failed, the agreement of this case was retired from the CCC.

(2) The details, purpose, and language and text of the instant agreement, including the filing of a prior civil suit

In full view of the circumstances, status, and status of the plaintiffs of the CCC at the time of food, arrangement, etc., the Information Disclosure under the Agreement

Prize is difficult to regard it as wage and salary, which is remuneration for work, and rather success in service provision.

It is reasonable to see it as remuneration. Also, the possibility of realizing the key amount of income is the agreement of this case alone.

It is difficult to see that the conciliation decision in this case has been considerably mature and confirmed, and that right is entitled thereto.

It is reasonable to view that it has become final and conclusive.

3) The former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11611, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter referred to as “former Income”).

Article 21 (1) 17, 19, 2, and 37 (2) of the Tax Act, the enforcement of the former Income Tax Act

Article 87 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Decree (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24315, Jan. 16, 2013)

In full view of the language and text, and the system of regulations, other income under each item of subparagraph 19 is either one or one.

Income generated in relation to the provision of services, since it must be referred to as "price for the provision of services";

Even if it exceeds the nature of the consideration for the service, the income under subparagraph 19 shall not be considered as income.

It shall not include the cost of providing services subject to subparagraph 19 to subparagraph 17 above.

income under subparagraph 19 in calculating necessary expenses shall be at least 100 minutes.

The general principle is to include the 80-80 of the fee in the fixed rate, while the reward under subparagraph 17 shall be included in the general principle.

The same purport is the same. Therefore, the provision of temporary personal services is the same.

money or valuables received, the contents of the services or affairs provided, and the motive and practical motive of giving or receiving the money or valuables.

in comprehensive consideration of the purpose, amount, and relationship with the other party, the service system

Not only the nature of remuneration, such as remuneration for the meritorious service, but also the nature of the honorarium, as a whole;

not set forth in subparagraph 19, if it is deemed to have exceeded the scope of consideration for services;

It is reasonable to classify income as income under subparagraph 17 (Supreme Court Decision 2017Du30214 Decided April 26, 2017)

[See] In addition, Article 21 (1) 17 of the former Income Tax Act provides that one of the other income shall be the honorarium.

money and valuables paid for the purpose of the case in connection with administrative affairs or provision of services;

Whether this is applicable is comprehensive in terms of the motive and purpose of receiving the relevant money, relationship with the other party, amount, etc.

The decision should be made in consideration of the foregoing (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du27288, Sept. 13, 2013).

In light of the above legal principles, health class, issues amount, and the old Income Tax Act

It is reasonable to view that the other income under paragraph (1) of Article 21 falls under "the honorarium prescribed in subparagraph 17."

Due diligence is as follows:

㈎ 이 사건 약정은 회사가 이사에게 재직 중의 직무집행에 대한 대가로 일상

A summary of the contingent compensation for the performance of the project in this case, not the payment agreement of the remuneration to be paid in full;

I have the character of justice.

㈏ 원고들은 CCC의 이사로 취임 후 이 사건 사업의 승인과 관련된 인허가

He/she shall be in charge of affairs, and after approval of the project, he/she shall serve as the head of the golf course construction headquarters, and general affairs

It seems that considerable efforts are made to ensure the success of the project of this case, such as the person in charge.

CCC paid the original amount of the instant case to the Plaintiffs as a separate case in addition to salaries.

set forth in subsection (1) of this section.

㈐ 원고들은 '설령 쟁점금액을 근로소득이 아닌 기타소득으로 보더라도, 쟁점

The amount shall be at least the “temporary human service cost” under Article 21(1)19 of the former Income Tax Act.

As such, 80% of the necessary expenses should be recognized.

However, the original amount of this case is compared to the objective value of the service provided by the plaintiffs.

Since this is a large amount, the success of the project in this case is more than the price for the provision of service.

In light of the fact that the nature of the honorariums for the plaintiffs who made efforts is more strong, the plaintiff

The reasons why the plaintiffs, etc. participated in the project of this case are related to the promotion of the project of this case

Plaintiffs rather than because they had any specialized knowledge or special function.

It appears that the overall flow of the construction project or the situation was well known, etc.

In light of the above, the plaintiffs' assertion is difficult to accept.

㈑ 한편, 원고들이 비록 이 사건 당초금액의 지급을 구하는 선행민사소송의

Even if winning in the first instance trial, the existence and scope of the claims between the parties in that appellate trial.

It was difficult to measure the failure, as the rupturely disputed the failure. Accordingly, the instant conciliation has been carried out.

In the proceeding, EE, Kim Jin and Lee Jin who is a party to the instant arrangement, including the plaintiffs;

participation by the 5 person as the CC and receives total of KRW 3 billion from the CCC.

The plaintiffs and EE shall be divided, and instead the plaintiffs and EE shall waive all the remaining claims, each trade name.

this section, with a content that cooperates in the smooth resolution of a pending provisional seizure or a stay of compulsory execution

According to this, the issue amount can be seen as the plaintiffs' civil procedure.

Any kind of claim received under the court's voluntary adjustment on the condition that the remaining claim is waived.

There is room to regard the agreed amount as the agreed amount, and in this case, the issue amount is prescribed in Article 21 (1) 17 of the Income Tax Act.

'the honorarium' is applicable to ‘the honorarium'.

(iv) satisfies the requirements or validity requirements for the creation or validity of private rights in relation to the principle of confirmation of rights.

In addition, the right is not determined immediately, so the right related to the timing of income attribution under tax law is not confirmed.

Determination of whether or not a right under the Income Tax Act is determined is not necessarily consistent with the private law standard.

“Final” means the content of the rights that further result in the establishment and effect of the contract;

As guaranteed by this Act, the possibility of its realization refers to the state in which it is objectively perceived under this Act.

Generally, the right holder may exercise his right, and there is no impediment in the exercise and exercise of that right.

income. In addition, the existence and scope of claims between the payer and the recipient of the income.

(2) If the dispute is brought to a lawsuit due to a dispute, the circumstances and the nature of the dispute

Where it is deemed impossible to clearly unfair in light of quality, etc., income at the stage prior to the lawsuit;

only when the judgment becomes final and conclusive, the right to such

It should be determined (Supreme Court Decision 96Nu19154 delivered on June 13, 1997).

5) The plaintiffs had already been at issue since October 2007 when the agreement of this case was concluded.

However, it is argued that the time of income attribution of the disputed amount is 2007 on the ground that the claim occurred;

As seen earlier, as to the existence and scope of a successful compensation claim under the instant agreement

There was a dispute through the preceding civil procedure, etc., and the dispute on the interpretation of the contents of the above agreement was the reason therefor.

B. In light of the content, it is clearly unfair to the extent that the CCC shall return its liability to it.

It does not seem that the plaintiffs actually received from the CCC according to the result of the instant conciliation.

The amount of KRW 700 million stated in the agreement of this case that CCC shall pay to the plaintiffs.

The agreement of this case alone is not sufficient to realize the key amount, with each one billion won and the amount different.

In full view of the fact that it is difficult to see that the nature of the business has been determined, the issue amount is "other income".

The date of attribution shall be April 2012 or at least this shall have been received by the plaintiffs from CCC.

It is reasonable to view that it is April 20, 2012, which is the date of the mediation decision (On the other hand, CCC shall also make this mediation.

As a result, "other controversial amount as a withholding agent after paying the key amount to the plaintiffs."

The head of the Jeju Tax Office has withheld income and reported and paid the amount to the head of the Jeju Tax Office, and the amount of the issue is ‘business expenses'

(2) The account shall be kept and appropriated as the cost incurred in 2012.

6) The plaintiffs shall be construed as "one kind of remuneration for directors" of the instant agreement in the preceding civil procedure.

Based on the fact that the nature of the key amount is ‘labor income', the above lawsuit is asserted as constituting ‘labor income'.

Since the nature of the instant agreement was disputed, the nature of the instant agreement as remuneration for directors.

such agreement shall have been approved by the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors in accordance with the Commercial Act.

Since the plaintiffs are subject to procedural restrictions, it was intended to find out such restrictions, and the plaintiffs, instead, are prior to such restrictions.

In civil procedure, the instant agreement is a director’s fee arrangement to avoid such procedural limitation.

It is argued that it is an agreement with the nature of the consideration for the completion of the golf course.

D. Whether the agreement of this case made in the preceding civil procedure is of the nature as "the remuneration of the director"

The discussion on whether or not the issue amount, which is the issue point of the present case, is ‘ earned income' and the area of discussion.

No other person shall be employed as it is.

7) Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs enter into an employment contract with an enterprise with a specially competent employee.

The established rules of the tax authority which classifys Sgring Sgrons as earned income.

Then, it is argued that the issue amount should be classified as earned income, but it is argued that it should be classified as earned income.

Sgring is a kind of dual nature that is paid for the employment of outstanding human resources.

In money, a certain amount shall be returned if most of the obligatory work periods are given and the withdrawal within the contract period is made.

In common, there is an agreement that the contract of this case would be the CCC at the former workplace of the Plaintiff.

The results of the tourism development project for ○○ Tourist Zone, not received under the terms of transfer;

Since the successful compensation is a payment agreement (the time the agreement of this case was concluded) the Plaintiff entered the CCC.

The rules and regulations on the inter-learning Sgring Sgrons have been set up in the past two years after the date on which they were set forth in this case.

in subsection (1).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is ordered that all of them be dismissed.

shall be determined as above.

AA, BB

○ Head of tax office

2017.12

. 13, 2017

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

On October 28, 2014, the former Defendant’s rejection disposition against Plaintiff A is revoked as KRW 241,814,886 of global income tax for the year 2012, KRW 3,548,736 of global income tax for the year 2012, KRW 230,789,060 of global income tax for the year 2012 against Plaintiff BB, and KRW 230,789,060 of global income tax for the year 2012.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 1, 2005, Plaintiff AA entered CCC (a construction business, housing construction business, golf course construction business, hotel construction business, and container construction business; hereinafter “CCC”) and was appointed as director on April 13, 2007, and retired on March 31, 2010, and was in charge of authorization and permission related to the approval of ○○○ tourism business. After the approval of the golf course, Plaintiff AA was in charge of general affairs related to the construction of DDDDD’s revenues. After the completion of the golf course, Plaintiff AA was in charge of the Defendant’s funding and accounting affairs, and was in charge of promoting the ○○○○○ Tourism Development project.

B. On December 1, 2005, Plaintiff BB entered the CCC and was appointed as a director on April 13, 2007, and was dismissed on July 31, 2010, and was in charge of obtaining approval for the tourism business of the ○○ District. After the business approval, Plaintiff B was in charge of the design and planning management, construction, and cost management of DD golf courses, and was in charge of the two-stage business after the completion of the golf course. The Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with CCC on October 8, 2007 (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

D. On June 11, 2010, the Plaintiffs and EE filed a lawsuit seeking payment of the agreed amount (○○ District Court 2010Gahap1537, hereinafter referred to as “prior lawsuit”) with CCC on the ground that CCC did not pay the amount under the instant agreement.

E. In the preceding civil lawsuit, the judgment was rendered to the Plaintiffs to pay each of the above agreed amount of KRW 1 billion and delay damages to the Plaintiffs. CCC appealed against the above judgment, and the appellate court paid a total of KRW 3 billion to the Plaintiffs and EE on April 20, 2012, and the Plaintiffs, out of the above amount, were divided into KRW 700 million (hereinafter referred to as “central Court Decision No. 2011Na315, hereinafter referred to as “instant conciliation”). The Plaintiffs received the amount from CCC on April 2012, 201.

F. In the process of filing global income tax returns for the year 2012 on May 31, 2013, the Plaintiffs reported and paid the respective tax amount of KRW 241,814,886, and KRW 230,789,060, including the wage and salary income accrued in the year 2012, and KRW 230,789,060, respectively, Plaintiff AB refused a claim for correction against each of the instant claims against Plaintiff B: (a) on August 31, 2014; and (b) on October 10, 2014, Plaintiff BB rejected a claim for correction against Plaintiff B’s claim for correction of KRW 238,26,150 (=241,814,886 – KRW 3,548,736); and (b) on August 230, 208, respectively.

G. Plaintiff AA filed an appeal on January 27, 2015 against the foregoing rejection disposition, but the appeal on September 14, 2015 was dismissed, and Plaintiff BB filed an appeal on December 31, 2014 against the above rejection disposition, but the appeal on October 13, 2015 was dismissed. The appeal on October 13, 2015 was dismissed. The absence of the grounds for the appeal, the evidence A1 through 4 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the evidence A, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the rejection disposition of each of the instant applications is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The key amount received by the Plaintiffs from CCC around April 2012 falls under the earned income belonging to the year 2007 as consideration for work received due to the instant agreement concluded on October 8, 2007, and this constitutes the earned income belonging to the Plaintiffs in 2007.