[1] In a case where the name of the acquired income is "exclusive contract deposit" and its feasibility is recognized, the legal nature of the income (=business income) and the standard and method of determining whether the income received by an artist from the service provided in his/her own qualification constitutes business income or other income, which is a temporary income

[2] The case holding that since the actual content of an exclusive contract, which is an activity for which a taxpayer who is a professional camping player, has created revenue from the name, can be recognized as having the purpose of profit, continuity, and reflectability as an activity performed by the taxpayer, the exclusive contract amount also constitutes business income with the recognition of the purpose of profit, etc.

[3] The requirements for the application of the principle of good faith to tax authorities' actions and the establishment of non-taxable practices in tax law relations

[4] In a case where the tax authority consistently construed and treated the amount of the exclusive contract for professional camping players as other income for about twenty (20) years, and where all professional camping players reported the amount of the exclusive contract to other income before the tax authority revised the existing rules established by the National Tax Service, which viewed the amount of the exclusive contract for professional camping players as other income, the case holding that the above rules alone do not constitute a public opinion or opinion under Articles 15 and 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes or that the tax authority imposed the amount of the exclusive contract for professional camping players as other income without imposing tax on other income

[5] The case holding that in a case where a taxpayer who is a professional camping player returns and pays the global income tax on the ground that the amount of the exclusive contract constitutes other income pursuant to the former National Tax Service's established rules, the tax authority revised and notified the global income tax on the ground that the amount of the exclusive contract constitutes business income, but revoked the global income detailed disposition by accepting a civil petition filed by the taxpayer, but thereafter, the general income tax was imposed by deeming the amount of the exclusive contract as business income upon the request of the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection, the imposition of the global income tax on the amount of the exclusive contract as business income

[1] 소득세법 시행령에서 기타소득으로 정한 ‘전속계약금’은 사업소득 이외의 일시적·우발적 소득에 해당하는 경우만을 의미하는 것으로서 취득한 소득의 명칭이 ‘전속계약금’이라고 하더라도 그것에 사업성이 인정되는 한 이를 사업소득으로 보아야 하고, 탤런트 등 연예인이 독립된 자격에서 용역을 제공하고 받는 소득이 사업소득에 해당하는지 또는 일시소득인 기타소득에 해당하는지 여부는 당사자 사이에 맺은 거래의 형식·명칭 및 외관에 구애될 것이 아니라 그 실질에 따라 평가한 다음, 그 거래의 한쪽 당사자인 당해 납세자의 직업 활동의 내용, 그 활동 기간, 횟수, 태양, 상대방 등에 비추어 그 활동이 수익을 목적으로 하고 있는지 여부와 사업활동으로 볼 수 있을 정도의 계속성과 반복성이 있는지 여부 등을 고려하여 사회통념에 따라 판단하여야 하며, 그 판단을 함에 있어서도 소득을 올린 당해 활동에 대한 것뿐만 아니라 그 전후를 통한 모든 사정을 참작하여 결정하여야 하므로, 구 소득세법(2005. 12. 31. 법률 제7837호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제21조 제1항 제18호 에서 ‘전속계약금’을 기타소득의 하나로 규정하고 있더라도, 당해 납세자가 전속계약금이란 명칭의 수입금을 창출한 활동의 실질적 내용이 일시적·우발적 활동이 아니고 사업활동으로서의 계속성과 반복성을 인정할 수 있으면 이는 기타소득이 아닌 사업소득에 해당한다고 봄이 옳다.

[2] The case holding that since the actual contents of an exclusive contract, which is an activity for which a taxpayer who is a professional camping player, has created revenues from the name, can be recognized as having the purpose of profit, continuity, and reflectability as an activity performed by the taxpayer rather than temporary and friendly activities, the exclusive contract amount also constitutes business income by recognizing the purpose of profit, etc.

[3] In general, in tax law relations, in order to apply the principle of good faith to a tax authority’s act under Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the tax authority must name a public opinion statement that is the subject of trust to taxpayers. On the other hand, in order to establish a non-taxable practice under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, there must be not only an objective fact that has not been taxed for a considerable period of time, but also an intent that the tax authority should not impose taxes on the matter, with the knowledge that the tax authority can impose taxes on it, and such public opinion or opinion

[4] In a case where the tax authorities consistently interpreted and treated the amount of the exclusive contract for professional camping players as other income for about twenty (20) years, and the tax authorities imposed the amount of the exclusive contract for professional camping players as other income, and all professional camping players reported the amount of the exclusive contract to other income before changing the established rules of the existing National Tax Service (264-310, 4601-1031, August 29, 2001), which were viewed as other income, the case holding that the above established rules alone do not purport to regard the amount of the exclusive contract under the exclusive contract under which the tax authorities expressed general opinion as to the abstract question of the taxpayer and business feasibility is recognized as other income, and thus, the above established rules cannot be deemed as non-taxable or non-taxable practices under Article 15(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes or Article 18(3) of the same Act

[5] The case holding that in a case where a taxpayer who is a professional camping player returns and pays the global income tax on the ground that the amount of the exclusive contract constitutes other income pursuant to the established rules of the National Tax Service, the tax authority revised and notified the global income tax on the ground that it constitutes business income, accepted a civil petition filed by the taxpayer, but revoked the global income detailed and disposition, but thereafter, the comprehensive income tax was imposed on deeming the amount of the exclusive contract as business income upon the request of the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection, the case holding that in a case where the taxpayer imposed the global income tax on the ground that it constitutes the amount of the exclusive contract as business income pursuant to the request of the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection, it constitutes a conflict of opinion due to a difference in tax interpretation beyond a simple legal site or misunderstanding, and in this case, if the taxpayer took the opinion different from the opinion of the tax authority at the time of disposition

[1] Articles 19 and 21(1)18 (current deleted) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837 of Dec. 31, 2005) / [2] Articles 19 and 21(1)18 (current Deletion) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837 of Dec. 31, 2005) / [3] Articles 15 and 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes / [4] Articles 15 and 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes / [5] Articles 15 and 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Articles 19 and 21(1)18 (current deleted) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837 of Dec. 31, 2005)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 200Du5210 Decided June 15, 2001 / [1/3] Supreme Court Decision 2000Du5203 Decided April 24, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 1266) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8947 Decided May 28, 1991 (Gong191, 1807), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu9824 Decided March 31, 192 (Gong192, 1462)

Yang-Ba (Law Firm Won, Attorneys O Sung-jin et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Head of Dong Daegu Tax Office

October 28, 2009

1. The part of the Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 122,643,140 on December 3, 2007 against the Plaintiff and of KRW 112,723,270 on global income tax of KRW 112,723,270 on global income tax of KRW 118,014,80 on December 10, 207 and the part exceeding KRW 87,50,000 on global income tax of KRW 118,00 on global income tax of KRW 205 on December 10, 207 shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be divided into three parts, and two of them shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant respectively.

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 122,643,140 as of December 3, 2007 against the Plaintiff and of KRW 112,723,270 as well as global income tax of KRW 112,723,270 as of December 10, 207, respectively, and the imposition of global income tax of KRW 118,014,880 as of December 10, 2007 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 2, 2002, the Plaintiff, as a professional camping player, entered into an exclusive contract with Samsung Gaz Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Masung”) and filed a report on the global income tax base by deeming the amount of KRW 1 billion (hereinafter “instant exclusive contract amount”) to be other income attributed to 2002.

B. On July 1, 2005, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 370,053,30 of global income tax for the year 2002, while the instant exclusive contract amount constituted business income. Upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendant issued a notice of correction and notification of KRW 370,053,30 of global income tax for the year 2002, “The disposition imposing tax on the Plaintiff’s income deeming the Plaintiff’s business income is not contrary to the principle of good faith, but the instant exclusive contract amount was divided into the contract period (four years) and then the amount of income for each taxable year is calculated and corrected again in accordance with the judgment rendered by the Tax Tribunal on January 12, 2006, the amount of global income tax for the year 2002 shall be reduced to KRW 235,36,410, and the amount of global income tax for the year 2003 shall be reduced to KRW 122,643,145, and the amount of global income tax for the year 204.

C. On January 24, 2007, the Plaintiff received an inquiry (income tax system-58) from the Ministry of Finance and Economy to the effect that “the instant exclusive contract amount constitutes business income, but it applies to the portion for which tax liability becomes effective after the date of questioning by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service (written Internet visiting Counseling Team 1-369, March 11, 2004) to the same purport.” On February 23, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition for grievance with the Director of the Daegu Regional Tax Office for the disposition of imposition of global income tax imposed by dividing the instant exclusive contract amount to the business income during the contract period, considering the instant exclusive contract amount as the business income during the contract period, along with the said examination. The Director of the Daegu Regional Tax Office accepted it and revoked the disposition of imposition of global income

D. On October 19, 2007, the Defendant received a request for correction from the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection to correct the grievance petition of the Plaintiff. On December 3, 2007, the Defendant respectively corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 118,014,880 as global income tax for the year 2003, and KRW 130,786,270 as global income tax for the year 2004, and KRW 118,014,880 as global income tax for the year 205, and KRW 118,014,880 as global income tax for the year 2005.

E. The plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on February 11, 2008, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on September 16, 2008.

F. On September 16, 2009, the Defendant corrected the amount of KRW 18,063,00,00 for the additional payment for 669 days from February 1, 2006 to December 2, 2007, respectively, of KRW 140,70,706,140 for global income tax of KRW 130,786,140 for the year 2003 and global income tax of KRW 118,00 for the additional payment for 669 days for the year 204 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The instant exclusive contract amount is that the Plaintiff, a professional camping player, entered into an exclusive contract with Samsung Gaz and received in return, and is the Plaintiff’s price for providing one-time services, i.e., one-way player activities for Samsung Gaz only during the contract period, and temporary and contingent income provided once for the purpose of compensating for the opportunity cost lost by the exclusive contract. Thus, it constitutes “exclusive contract amount” as other income under Article 21(1)18 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837, Dec. 31, 2005; hereinafter “former Income Tax Act”).

(2) Even if the tax authority regards the instant exclusive contract amount as business income, it has consistently interpreted and treated the exclusive contract amount of professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional witness's business income for 20 years after the commencement of professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional professional participation in his/her business income, it violates the principle of prohibition of taxation under Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the revised rules of this case.

(3) The instant disposition, even though there was no change in circumstances in the previous disposition already canceled by the Defendant, was reversed according to the request of the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection, and thus, it did not have any legal basis, and is an unlawful disposition contrary to the principle of trust and good faith.

(4) In full view of the existing practices of the tax authorities on the instant exclusive contract amount and the developments leading up to the instant disposition, penalty tax cannot be imposed on the Plaintiff on justifiable grounds that the Plaintiff did not report the instant exclusive contract amount as business income or did not pay the comprehensive income tax calculated by making the instant exclusive contract amount as business income. Therefore, the part on imposition of penalty tax among the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

(1) The Plaintiff entered Samsung Telecommunication in 1993 and started its activities as a professional camping player until 1998, and was engaged in the activities as a professional camping player. In 199, the Plaintiff entered Telecommunication as a member of Samsung Telecommunication, and was employed as a member of Samsung Telecommunication in 1999. From 2000 to 2001, the Plaintiff was engaged in the activities as a professional camping player as a member of Samsung Telecommunication from 2002.

(2) On January 2, 2002, the Plaintiff, a professional camping player, concluded an exclusive agreement with Samsung Gaz with the following content.

Article 1 (Purpose) The purpose of this Agreement is to provide a special function as a professional camping player to make a team by participating in the team as a member of the group, and the team determines compensation corresponding to the activities of the players and the conditions thereof.

Article 2 (Terms of Contracts)

1) Contract term

A player shall act as a player of the Gu team from February 1, 2002 to November 30, 2005.

(ii) Accessers;

(1) Amount: 1,000 million won per day (1,00,000,000 won)

Provided, That the total amount of taxes on prize winners shall be borne by players.

(2) Time to pay the Gu: The Gu shall complete payment for the full amount of a deposit slip within one month from the date on which this contract is prepared.

(iii) remuneration for participation activities;

(1) Amount: 30 million won in daily amount (330,000,000 won).

Provided, That the total amount of taxes on the remuneration for participation activities shall be borne by the player.

(2) Time of payment: The remuneration for participation in the relevant year shall be paid in ten equal installments from February 1 to November 30 each year during the term of the Gu's contract.

(iv) options;

(1) The remuneration for participating activities shall be guaranteed for four years in the amount of one-time Pison Pison.

2. The player shall return KRW 100,000 to the old group by November 21 of the year concerned, if he/she takes a business trip with less than 90 ponis and less than 0.270 ponis and less than 60 points: Provided, That even one of the three items above shall be returned to the old group when it falls short of 10,000 won.

3. When the player has made a business trip of at least 100 times on the one-time Pison and the other is at least 0.305,80,000, the old group shall pay 100 million won to the player by no later than November 21 of the year concerned: Provided, That when all the above three items have been achieved, 10 million won shall be paid to the player.

(4) If the player falls short of the 1st place of the Regulation on Pison Pison, he/she shall return the 0,000 won by November 21 of the relevant year.

Article 3 (Obligations of Playerss)

1) A player shall be a leader at the improvement of the image of the Gu team’s highest grade and the life group.

2) It is recognized that players are the basic duty to maintain the highest physical conditions, to faithfully participate in formal, non-official competitions and training teams designated by the Gu team, and to fulfill their best special functions as professional camping players.

3) 선수는 구단의 제규정과 운영방침을 준수하고, 감독과 코칭스텝의 지시에 복종하며, 프로야구선수로서의 품위를 유지하여야 한다.

4) It is confirmed that a player’s business trip, refusal of training, attitude, failure to give instructions, etc. is an act of causing serious injury that would result in the recovery of the group in breach of its obligations as a player.

5) In the event of a clear breach of the duties of the players in Article 3, this Agreement shall be automatically terminated and shall be immediately returned to the prize oman and the remuneration for participation received from the team.

Article 4 (Non-Performance of Contracts)

1) After the formation of this contract, if it is objectively evident that the participation of the team is impossible or extremely difficult to engage in the team due to the causes attributable to the player, such as the participation contract with the team, or even if the team enters the team, the player shall pay an amount equivalent to twice the participating team stipulated in Article 2 as penalty.

2) If it is impossible or extremely difficult to conduct a normal player activity due to a cause attributable to a player who is unrelated to the training of the match and the group after entering the team, the player shall return to the team an amount ex officio proportional to the period of his or her participation compared to the total contract period. In addition, the team shall be exempted from the obligation to pay the participant activity remuneration for an amount calculated by multiplying the amount equivalent to 1/300 of the amount of the participant activity remuneration agreed in Article 2 by the number of days of his or her participation in the event of failure to perform the contract under Article 2(4) and the amount returned due to the failure to perform the contract under Article 4(2).

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence, Gap's evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) As to the allegation that the instant exclusive contract amount constitutes other income

(가) 소득세법 시행령에서 기타소득으로 정한 ‘전속계약금’은 사업소득 이외의 일시적·우발적 소득에 해당하는 경우만을 의미하는 것으로서 취득한 소득의 명칭이 ‘전속계약금’이라고 하더라도 그것에 사업성이 인정되는 한 이를 사업소득으로 보아야 하고, 탤런트 등 연예인이 독립된 자격에서 용역을 제공하고 받는 소득이 사업소득에 해당하는지 또는 일시소득인 기타소득에 해당하는지 여부는 당사자 사이에 맺은 거래의 형식·명칭 및 외관에 구애될 것이 아니라 그 실질에 따라 평가한 다음, 그 거래의 한쪽 당사자인 당해 납세자의 직업 활동의 내용, 그 활동 기간, 횟수, 태양, 상대방 등에 비추어 그 활동이 수익을 목적으로 하고 있는지 여부와 사업활동으로 볼 수 있을 정도의 계속성과 반복성이 있는지 여부 등을 고려하여 사회통념에 따라 판단하여야 하며, 그 판단을 함에 있어서도 소득을 올린 당해 활동에 대한 것뿐만 아니라 그 전후를 통한 모든 사정을 참작하여 결정하여야 할 것인바( 대법원 2001. 6. 15. 선고 2000두5210 판결 등 참조), 구 소득세법 제21조 제1항 제18호 에서 ‘전속계약금’을 기타소득의 하나로 규정하고 있더라도, 당해 납세자가 전속계약금이란 명칭의 수입금을 창출한 활동의 실질적 내용이 일시적·우발적 활동이 아니고 사업활동으로서의 계속성과 반복성을 인정할 수 있으면 이는 기타소득이 아닌 사업소득에 해당한다고 봄이 옳다.

(나) 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 위 인정 사실 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 원고가 삼성라이온즈와 체결한 전속계약의 내용(특히, 원고는 최상의 신체적 조건을 유지하여 구단이 지정하는 공식·비공식경기 및 구단의 훈련에 성실히 참가하고, 최선을 다해 프로야구선수로서 지닌 특수기능을 발휘하는 것이 기본적인 의무이고, 구단의 제규정과 운영방침을 준수하고 감독과 코칭스텝의 지시에 복종하며, 원고의 출장 및 훈련거부, 태업, 지시불이행 등은 원고의 의무사항을 위반하는 것으로서 위 의무사항을 위반할 시는 본 계약은 자동해지되고 구단으로부터 지급받은 입단보너스와 참가활동보수를 즉시 반납하여야 한다는 내용, 입단 후 경기 및 구단의 훈련과 무관한 원고의 귀책사유로 정상적인 선수활동이 불가능하거나 심히 곤란하게 된 경우 입단보너스 중 총계약기간 대비 미활동기간에 산술적으로 비례하는 금액을 구단에 일시불로 반납하여야 한다는 내용, 원고가 1시즌당 정해진 출장수와 타율, 타점 미만시는 구단에 1억 원을 반납한다는 내용 등)으로 보아, 삼성라이온즈는 원고가 자신이 지정하는 경기 및 훈련에 참가하지 않음에도 오로지 다른 구단의 소속 선수로 활동하지 못하게 할 목적으로 전속계약을 체결하고 이 사건 전속계약금을 지급한 것이라기보다는, 오히려 계약기간 동안에 원고를 삼성라이온즈 소속 선수로서 삼성라이온즈가 지정하는 경기에 참가시켜 프로야구선수로서 가지는 특수기능을 발휘하도록 하는 것을 목적으로 하여 전속계약을 체결하고 이 사건 전속계약금을 지급한 것으로 보이는 점, ② 실제로도 위 계약기간 동안에 원고가 삼성라이온즈 소속 선수로서 각종 야구경기에 계속하여 참가하여 왔던 점, ③ 따라서 비록 위 전속계약 내용에 따라 다른 구단에 입단하여서는 안된다는 조항이 부가되어 있다고 하더라도 원고로서는 단순히 부작위 의무만을 부담하는 것이 아니고 삼성라이온즈 소속 선수로서 경기 및 훈련참가의무를 부담하고 있는 것이므로, 이 사건 전속계약금이 다른 구단에 입단하지 않고 프로야구선수로서의 용역을 삼성라이온즈에게만 일신전속적으로 제공하기로 하는 것에 대한 대가로서의 성격을 일부 갖고 있다고 하더라도 본질적으로는 원고가 삼성라이온즈 소속 선수로서 지정된 경기 및 훈련에 참가하여 프로야구선수로서의 활동을 한다는 것에 대한 대가의 성질을 갖는 점, ④ 그런데 원고의 직업활동의 내용, 그 활동기간 및 활동의 범위, 태양, 거래의 상대방, 수익의 규모 등에 비추어 볼 때, 사회통념상 원고가 프로야구선수로서 한 활동은 수익을 올릴 목적으로 이루어져온 것으로서 위 전속계약 역시 그와 같은 활동의 하나에 해당하고, 또한 원고가 위와 같은 전속계약을 체결하게 된 것 자체가 그동안 각종 프로야구경기에 출전하면서 발휘한 프로야구선수로서의 능력과 지명도에 터잡은 프로야구선수로서의 계속·반복적인 활동의 일환에 해당한다고 볼 수 있는데다가 삼성라이온즈 등과 전속계약기간이 종료되면 다시 전속계약을 체결하여 오는 등 그 계속·반복성 또한 인정되는 점, ⑤ 원고 스스로도 참가활동보수 즉, 연봉 등은 사업소득으로 신고하여 왔던 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 비록 위 전속계약 내용에 다른 구단에 입단하여서는 안된다는 조항이 부가되어 있다고 하더라도 원고가 전속계약금이란 명칭의 수입금을 창출한 활동인 전속계약의 실질적 내용이 일시적·우발적 활동이 아니고 원고가 수행하는 사업활동으로서의 수익목적성 및 계속·반복성이 있음을 인정할 수 있으므로, 이 사건 전속계약금 역시 수익목적성 및 계속·반복성이 인정되어 원고가 프로야구선수로서 활동하는 과정에서 올린 사업소득에 해당한다고 할 것이다.

Therefore, the instant disposition that deemed the instant exclusive contract amount as business income is legitimate, and this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(2) As to the assertion that the instant disposition goes against the principle of good faith and the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition

(A) In general, in tax law relations, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the tax authorities’ acts under Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the tax authorities must name a public opinion statement that is the subject of trust to taxpayers. On the other hand, in order to establish a non-taxable practice under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, there must be an intention not to impose taxes on taxpayers due to not only an objective fact that has not been imposed for a considerable period, but any special circumstance that the tax authorities are aware that they are able to impose taxes on the matter, and such public opinion or opinion needs to be expressed explicitly or implicitly (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du5203, Apr. 24, 2001

(B) As to the instant case, even if the tax authority did not impose a tax on the return of the exclusive contract amount as other income for twenty (20) years, it cannot be deemed that the tax authority issued a public opinion that is the premise of the principle of trust and good faith, or expressed the public opinion or intention that is the premise of the non-taxation practice under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and as other income, the National Tax Service's established rules (4601-1031, August 29, 1981) of the National Tax Service, which deemed the exclusive contract amount of the professional camping player as other income, did not always mean that the tax authority expressed a taxpayer's abstract opinion on the taxpayer's other income, and it cannot be deemed that the exclusive contract amount under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is an exclusive contract amount under which the tax authority did not have to impose a tax on other income under the same part. Therefore, it does not purport that the above provision is a non-taxation or other income under Article 15(3) of the Framework Act.

(3) As to the assertion that the instant disposition is a disposition without legal basis

According to the above evidence, the civil petition processing system is an exceptionally deliberated system after exceptionally considering the grievances of specific taxpayers who did not have an opportunity to file an objection, such as filing an objection, or who did not have a place to file a appeal, due to special circumstances, etc., and recommends correction of the initial disposition, etc., and it is not subject to civil petition for grievance, which is completed by the procedure of objection such as a request for a trial, etc. under the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, even if the plaintiff filed a civil petition for grievance with the Superintendent of the Daegu Regional Tax Office on July 1, 2005 and revoked the initial disposition, it cannot be deemed as a violation of the principle of trust and good faith because the logic or reason revoking the initial disposition or interpretation of the tax law applicable to the general taxpayer or practice of national tax administration, and the disposition of this case again imposed according to the request of the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection to correct the initial disposition is based on Article 80 (4) of the former Income Tax Act, which provides that "if any omission or error is discovered after the determination or correction of tax base and tax amount is corrected immediately."

(4) As to the allegation of illegality in imposing penalty tax

(A) In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under the tax law is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the Act in cases where a taxpayer violates a return, tax liability, etc. as prescribed by the Act without justifiable grounds, and it is not unreasonable for the taxpayer to be aware of his/her duty, and there is a circumstance that it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to reasonably present his/her duty or to expect the performance of his/her duty to the party concerned, etc.

(B) According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s previous disposition of global income tax as other income by raising the tax base for the Plaintiff’s previous disposition of global income tax to the extent that it constitutes other income under the National Tax Service’s established rule (1264-310, August 29, 2001), and the Plaintiff’s previous disposition of global income tax for 202 as other income under the 20-year global income tax law. Since the Plaintiff’s previous disposition of global income tax to the Plaintiff, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s previous disposition of global income tax for 200 years from the date of the Plaintiff’s revocation of the disposition of global income tax as other income under the 20-year global income tax law, the Plaintiff’s previous disposition of global income tax for 30 years from the date of the Plaintiff’s revocation of the disposition of global income tax for 200-year global income tax, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that it would be difficult for the Plaintiff to be subject to the 20-year general tax office’s disposition of global income tax for 20 years after its revocation.

Therefore, the penalty tax for failure to report and failure to pay in the disposition of this case should be revoked in an unlawful manner. Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the disposition of this case, the amount exceeding 90,000,000 won of global income tax for the year 2003 (122,643,140 won of global income tax for the disposition of this case - totaling 32,643,140 won of global income tax for the failure to report and failure to pay taxes - totaling 90,723,270 won of global income tax for the year 2004 (totaling 22,723,270 won of global income tax for the disposition of this case - totaling 22,723,270 won of global income tax for the failure to report and failure to pay taxes), 87,50,000 won of global income tax for the year 205 (total 118,014,80 won of global income tax for the disposition of this case - totaling 30,514,80 won of additional tax for the failure to report and failure to pay taxes - Each of this case shall be dismissed.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Hadal (Presiding Judge) Maximum or gender standards