Suwon District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-5269 (Law No. 18, 2015)

Cho Jae-2013-China-3094 ( December 30, 2013)

The substance of the amount that the Plaintiff received from the closing association is the brokerage fee for the right to property.

It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff received the instant amount from the above Order in return for mediating the agreement on land acquisition with respect to the land before the instant subdivision and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

Article 21 of the Income Tax Act

2015Nu5705 Global income and revocation of disposition

EK

Head of △ District Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Guhap52269 Decided August 18, 2015

May 18, 2016

June 15, 2016

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 Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 000,000,000 for the Plaintiff on June 1, 2012 and KRW 000,000 for the global income tax of KRW 200,000 for the year 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) evidence additionally submitted at the trial and insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected; and (b) the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the first instance as follows; (c) thus, it 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.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

○ Each "Income Tax" of the second and second Chapters 19 and 9 shall be regarded as "former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009)".

○ 6. The following shall be added below the 1st page:

In April 2006, ‘7) the plan for the instant land prior to the instant subdivision is indicated as ‘the realization of profits by compensating for land expropriation', ‘the 1st direction for the implementation of the project', ‘the development by the Government', ‘the development by the transfer system of development rights', ‘the third proposal', ‘the development by the Government'.

8) The Plaintiff, at the police and the prosecutor’s office, testified in the process of being investigated as follows, in the process of being investigated as to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act that “the Plaintiff took the land compensation procedure for the instant land before the instant subdivision and received KRW 0,000,000 in return for it around October 208.”

The contents of the contract of this case to be established by the Corporation are as follows: (a) whether the Plaintiff purchased the land before the division of this case directly from the branch of this case, or received compensation for the said land from the third party; (b) whether the land before the division of this case was sold to the third party; (c) whether the branch of this case would be entitled to at least KRW 00,000,000,000; and (d) the expenses incurred in the process shall be borne by the Plaintiff in entirety; and (d) if the Plaintiff received compensation for at least KRW 00,000,000,000, the amount exceeding KRW 50,000 shall be deducted.

The Plaintiff was concurrently engaged in the duties of compensation for land and construction of sports facilities for the land before the division of this case.

B. The Plaintiff did not receive documents related to the Indian fishing practice range projects, housing projects, and apartment construction projects, which were promoted by the Plaintiff on the land before the division of this case.

9) On July 29, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the instant subdivision to the effect that the Plaintiff was delegated with the authority to file a lawsuit on land compensation for the land before the instant subdivision and that the Plaintiff is paid 0% of the amount received at the time of completion of the receipt of compensation.

10) In a lawsuit (○○○○○ District Court 200○ 500○○○○○) claiming a loan against the Plaintiff on March 7, 2012, the third party NN, submitted by the Plaintiff’s legal representative, stating that “the Plaintiff was managing the instant subdivision land for a period of up to ten hundreds, but the land was expropriated. As the land was expropriated, the Plaintiff promised to receive approximately KRW 0,000,000 out of the compensation for expropriation in return for management among the patrolmen in October 208.”

○ 6. Two pages 6. [Reasons for Recognition] shall add “Evidence A Nos. 11, 19, 23, 25.”

○ The 6th parallel 19 to 7th parallels are as follows.

The appraisal price of the land before the subdivision of this case was approximately KRW 00,000,000 (per 00,000 square meters x 000,000) on the written appraisal prepared around June 2008. Thus, in accordance with the contract of this case, the branch of this case is in the position to pay 00,000,000 won or more which is 50% of the amount calculated by deducting relevant taxes to the Plaintiff when the expropriation compensation of the land before subdivision of this case is completed under the contract of this case. Under the provisional payment agreement prepared by the Plaintiff at the time of paying 0,000,000,000 won to the Plaintiff, the above KRW 0,00,000,000,000 was paid to the Plaintiff after completion of the land compensation of this case’s land before subdivision of this case’s contract of this case, the third party, who was the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff, shall be deemed to have been paid 00,000,0000 won for the Plaintiff’s answer of this case.

○ 7. The following shall be added to Chapter 19:

7) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant contract was concluded to delegate the construction work of sports facilities on the said land, not the land expropriation compensation business prior to the instant partition, and that KRW 0,00,00,000 paid by the Plaintiff does not constitute the cost for performing the land compensation business. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff, at an investigative agency, made a statement that the Plaintiff had been concurrently engaged in the land compensation business and the sports facilities construction business on the land prior to the instant partition. The Plaintiff did not receive relevant documents from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on July 29, 2003 that the Plaintiff had concluded an agreement on the instant land expropriation.

3. Conclusion

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