In a case where Party A filed a complaint with Party B, etc. with the investigative agency, and the head of the competent tax office determined and notified the comprehensive income tax after deducting necessary expenses from other income, on the ground that the agreement amount was not received in return for the handling of affairs withdrawing the complaint simply because Party A cannot be deemed to have received in return for the withdrawal of the complaint, and it cannot be deemed as a reward under Article 21 (1) 17 of the Income Tax Act, on the ground that the agreement amount cannot be deemed to have been received in return for the handling of affairs withdrawing the complaint.

In a case where Party A filed a complaint with Party B, etc. with Party B, etc. to investigation agency, and the head of the competent tax office determined and notified the comprehensive income tax after deducting necessary expenses from the amount of other income as “compensation” under Article 21(1)17 of the Income Tax Act, on the ground that he/she infringed upon Party A’s copyright by using a web dypt site or siren program without permission or downloading it, the case holding that Party A’s lawsuit, who did not reach an agreement with Party B, did not receive an agreement from Party B, on the ground that Party A did not receive a summary indictment under the charge of violation of the Copyright Act, or received a summary order for a violation of the Income Tax Act, on the ground that Party A did not receive an agreement on the grounds that it constitutes other income, the case holding that Party A collected the case of infringement of copyright related to his/her own novel and filed a complaint with the investigation agency, and that Party B did not receive the above agreement on the grounds that Party B’s lawsuit’s lawsuit and received the above agreement for damages for tort due to Party A’s lawsuit.

Article 21 (1) 17 of the Income Tax Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The director of Busan District Office

March 30, 2017

1. On August 1, 2016, the Defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of KRW 10,042,450, global income tax for the year 201, global income tax for the year 201, global income tax for the year 2012, global income tax for the year 2012, global income tax for the year 31,896,640, global income tax for the year 2013, global income tax for the year 2013, and global income tax for the year 2014.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a copyright holder of the theory of “○○○○○,” “△△△,” and “△△△”.

B. The Plaintiff filed a complaint with Nonparty 1, etc. with an investigative agency on the ground that he/she infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright by downloading or downloading the said novel file without permission by using the web site or siren program. From June 20, 201 to December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 566,033,452 (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

C. On August 1, 2016, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant agreement amount that the Plaintiff received from the Defendant’s Plaintiff from the Defendant’s Nonparty constituted “rewards” under Article 21(1)17 of the Income Tax Act and constituted other income; and (b) determined and notified the global income tax of KRW 10,042,450, global income tax of KRW 30,824,910, global income tax of KRW 31,896,640, global income tax of KRW 31,896,640, global income tax of KRW 112,837,430, and global income tax of KRW 2014 for the year 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 12, 2016, but was dismissed on December 12, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the agreement in this case received property and mental compensation from the infringer who infringed the plaintiff's copyright, it does not constitute other income as a honorarium under Article 21 (1) 17 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the disposition in this case imposing the comprehensive income tax on the premise that the agreement in this case constitutes other income under Article 21 (1) of the Income Tax Act is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

Article 21(1)17 of the Income Tax Act provides honorariums as other income. Here, the term "compensations" refers to money and goods provided as a means of case in connection with administrative affairs or provision of services, and whether it falls under this shall be determined by comprehensively considering the motive and purpose of receiving the relevant money and goods, relationship with the other party, amount, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu20304 delivered on January 15, 199, etc.).

In light of the following circumstances, each of the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence Nos. 4-9, Eul evidence Nos. 3-6 (including paper numbers), and the overall purport of arguments, the agreement amount of this case cannot be deemed to have been paid as compensation for the affairs that revoke the complaint, and even if the plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit against the defendant defendant who paid the agreement amount, it would have been paid property and mental damages caused by tort, such as copyright infringement. Thus, it is difficult to regard the agreement amount as a honorarium under Article 21 (1) 17 of the Income Tax Act. Unless the agreement amount of this case does not constitute other income under Article 21 (1) of the Income Tax Act, insofar as it does not constitute other income under the taxation system of the current Income Tax Act, which lists the scope of other income, the agreement amount of this case cannot be deemed to have been subject to taxation only on the ground that the necessity of taxation is recognized, and it cannot be deemed to violate the principle of fair taxation on income not listed in the Income Tax Act.)

1) On March 3, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a delegation contract with Nonparty 2 on the duty of copyright infringement management of the said novels. The content of the delegation contract is to ① periodically search the copyright infringement of the said novels and secure evidence available in the relevant litigation by the mandatory, ② enter into an agreement in the event of a request for agreement without any emphasis on the infringing person’s infringement, and ③ file a criminal complaint and civil damages claim in the event of an infringement of the infringing person’s infringement and there is no room for resolution by agreement.

2) The Plaintiff collected the case of copyright infringement related to his own novels, filed a complaint with the investigation agency, and revoked the complaint upon receipt of an agreement from KRW 50,000 to KRW 2,000 upon the request of the Defendant. The written agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant stated that “The Defendant agreed not to institute a civil or criminal objection any more on the grounds that the Defendant would have agreed on the condition that the Defendant would pay damages to the victim in criminal cases involving the violation of the Copyright Act between the parties, and that the victim would not be punished, as well as on the instant case.”

3) The Defendants, who did not reach an agreement with the Plaintiff, were indicted of suspension of indictment on the condition of education, or charged with the charge of violation of the Copyright Act, and the summary order of a fine was finalized, or the charges were convicted through a formal trial request (the Defendant was convicted of not guilty in the case prosecuted for violation of the Copyright Act by putting the novel, etc. on the part of the Defendant using a siren program, and thus the Defendant was sentenced not to have infringed upon the Plaintiff’s copyright solely on the ground that the Defendant used the above program. However, even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’s verdict of not guilty was pronounced on the ground that the proof of criminal facts is insufficient, and the case did not constitute a violation of the Copyright Act in the case where the Plaintiff’s novel was operated

4) On January 19, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit seeking compensation for damages arising from a tort of copyright infringement against the Defendant Nonparty (this Court Decision 2016Da306388, this Court Decision 2016Da308117, etc.) against which the Plaintiff did not reach an agreement, and rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff that “The Defendants paid 300,000 won and delay damages to the Plaintiff each as consolation money, because the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress by the Defendant’s copyright infringement,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Kim Jong-hee (Presiding Judge)