The case of imposing income tax on the grounds that the penalty for termination is appropriated as a new contract deposit.

The fact that the seller has confirmed that the penalty was appropriated for a new contract deposit, and that the seller of the same case has received the penalty and appropriated it as a new contract deposit due to the fact that the buyer of the same case has confirmed the above fact, so it is reasonable to levy income tax.

Article 21 [Other Incomes] of the Income Tax Act

General Rules of the Income Tax Act 21-1 / [Scope of Other Incomes]

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 159,129,320 for the Plaintiff on September 1, 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 23, 2001, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the representative OO of the O sub-agent, who is a seller of buildings in units, for 54-73 Otel 1001 Dong 2002 (total sales price of 3.5 million won). On November 21, 2001, GoO entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff on November 21, 2001 that the above officetel 101 Dong 2002 No. 202, the Plaintiff would terminate the sales contract and pay twice paid by the Plaintiff.

B. Since construction on the 38th floor level promised by GoO was in violation of the Building Act, it was impossible to carry out the construction. On June 25, 2004, the Plaintiff and GoOO entered into a sales contract for the above officetel 101 Dong 2002 (51 square meters, hereinafter referred to as the “the instant officetel”). The sales contract for the above 102 Dong 3002 (51 square meters, hereinafter referred to as the “the instant officetel”) was concluded. The sales price for the prepaid grain paid until the time of the impossibility of construction of the sub-story was KRW 30 million, but the Plaintiff paid the prepaid KRW 50 million in addition, the total amount paid by the Plaintiff as the sales price for the above 101 Dong 2002 is KRW 350,000.

C. On September 1, 206, the Defendant deemed that, according to the taxation data notified by the Director of the Regional Tax Office of OO, the penalty of KRW 350,000,000 as stated in the above Paragraph (1) was appropriated for the sales price of the instant officetel, the Plaintiff corrected and notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax of KRW 159,129,320 for the year 2004 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition, but was dismissed, and the Plaintiff’s appeal filed on February 12, 2007 also dismissed on April 20, 2007.

Descriptions of Gap 1, 2, 5, and 7, each of the facts with no grounds for recognition;

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) After considering that the actual sales price of the instant officetel was KRW 7.8 million, the Defendant actually paid by the Plaintiff, but the remaining KRW 3.5 million was deemed to have been appropriated for the penalty of KRW 3.5 million to be paid by the Plaintiff from the GoO. However, although the actual sales price of the instant officetel was not appropriated for the sales price of the instant officetel as KRW 4.3 million, the amount of penalty of KRW 3.5 million was not appropriated for the sales price of the instant officetel, and the Plaintiff only renounced penalty of KRW 3.5 million.5 million.

Therefore, the instant disposition, based on the premise that the Plaintiff was paid a penalty of KRW 350 million, is unlawful.

(2) Even if the Plaintiff’s economic profit from the acquisition of the instant officetel exists, it is the increase in the price from November 2001 to June 2004 of the 38th officetel of the 38th officetel of the same floor that the Plaintiff could have acquired, which, as a matter of course, should be attributed to the Plaintiff, not be deemed to have acquired penalty. Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have acquired penalty on the ground that only the planned explanation for the event of sale to increase the cost is established on the basis of the price at the time of June 2004 of the instant officetel, and then, the instant disposition that deemed that the Plaintiff appropriated a penalty of KRW 3.5 million to the sale price of the instant officetel is also in violation of the principle of substantial taxation.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) OO OO구 OO동3가 54-73 OO 오피스텔은 총 5개동 421세대이고, 그 중 원고와 같이 복층 38평으로 분양된 세대는 4세대{원고(101동 2002호), 이OO(102동 2002호), 이ΔΔ(102동 2003호), 김OO(103동 2002호)}였으며, 이OO는 3억 원에, 원고를 비롯한 나머지 3인은 각 3억 5천만 원에 분양받았다.

(2) 고OO은 위 4세대를 복층 38평으로 공사하였으나, OO특별시 OO구청장은 2004. 4. 28.경 원고를 비롯한 이OO, 이ΔΔ, 김OO에게 건축법 제9조(건축신고)를 위반하여 무단 증축(복층)하였으므로 자진철거하여 원상복구하라는 통지를 하였다.

(3) On June 25, 2004, the Plaintiff and GoOOO entered into a sales contract for the instant officetel on which it was impossible for the Plaintiff to execute the multi-story construction of Nos. 101 and 2002, which the Plaintiff would purchase as a corrective order for an unlawful building, such as the head of OO Special Metropolitan City OOOO, as described in paragraph (2) above, and the total supply value under the contract is KRW 430,000.3 billion.

(4) On the day of the preparation of the sales contract as described in the above Paragraph (3), the Plaintiff cancelled the first sales contract between the Plaintiff and GoOO on November 28, 2001 (No. 101. 2002) without penalty and any terms and conditions, and did not file a civil or criminal objection, and 3.50 million won already paid are to substitute the sales contract as the down payment for the instant officetel, and thereafter, the Plaintiff paid KRW 80 million on August 30, 2004 as the sales fund for the instant officetel.

(5) 원고와 같이 복층 38평을 분양받기로 한 김OO, 이ΔΔ, 이OO 또한 기존의 분양계약을 합의해지 하였고, 원고와 마찬가지로 51평형을 분양받기로 하였다.

(6) On April 16, 2004, KimO and GoO entered into a sales contract with OO-dong 3, 54-73 Otel 1002 (51 square) at 54-73 Otel, and the total amount of the public funds under the contract is stated as KRW 794,375,000.

(7) 이ΔΔ과 고OO은 2004. 5. 3. OO OO구 OO동3가 54-73 OO 오피스텔 105동 3002호(51평)에 대한 분양계약을 체결하였는데 그 계약서상 총 공급가액은 768,750,000원으로 기재되어 있다.

(8) On May 3, 2004, EOOOO-dong 3 entered into a sales contract for 54-73 Otel 1001 302 (51 square). The total value of supply under the contract is KRW 350 million.

(9) 김◎◎(이ΔΔ의 남편)는 2005. 8. 22. OO지방국세청 소속 직원이 작성한 확인서에 이름과 주민등록번호를 기재하여 팩스로 보내주었는데, 그 확인서에 의하면, 2004. 5. 3. 위 105동 3002호를 768,750,000원에 분양받았고, 4억 3천만 원(기존의 불입액 3억 5천만 원 + 추가 불입액 8천만 원)을 실제로 불입하였으며, 나머지는 위약금과 상계하였다고 되어 있다.

(10) On August 23, 2005, KimO sent a letter of confirmation prepared by an employee of the regional tax office with his name and resident registration number written by facsimile. According to the letter of confirmation, on April 16, 2004, on condition that he did not receive penalty on April 16, 2004, the above 103 Dong 3002 (e.g. 51 square) was sold to 794,375,000 won, and approximately 450,000 (e.g., an additional amount of KRW 350,000,000) was actually paid, and the remainder was set off against penalty.

(11) 고OO은 2005. 9. 21. 원고와 김OO, 이ΔΔ에게 지급하여야 할 위약금 3억 5천만 원과 이OO에게 지급하여야 할 위약금 2억 5천 5백만 원은 원고와 김OO, 이ΔΔ, 이OO가 분양받기로 한 위 각 51평에 대한 분양대금의 일부로 충당되었으므로 소득세를 과세할 때 위 위약금 상당액이 필요경비로 산입되어야 한다는 내용의 소명서를 OO지방국세청에 제출하였다.

(12) The OOO was sold out of OO in lots 54-73 OOtel 104 3002 (51 square meters). The total supply value on the sales contract was KRW 768,750,000 (OO appears to have been sold in lots as a construction business operator under the pretext of a default on payment for the claim for construction payment from OO).

(13) 고OO은 원고와 김OO, 이ΔΔ, 이OO에게 복층 38평형으로 분양하고자 하였던 위 4세대를 단층으로 다시 공사한 후 일반 분양하였는데 그 분양가액은 모두 4억 5천만 원이었다.

(14) According to the market price appraisal result of appraiser Kim-chul's similarity, the market price of the instant officetel at the time of June 25, 2004 is 586,50,000 won.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap 3 through 5, Gap 7, 11, Eul 2 and 3, and the result of the appraisal of the market price of the appraiser Kim-dong, the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

(1) Whether to accept penalty

위 인정사실에게 본 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 원고와 같이 복층 38평형을 분양받기로 하였다가 51평형을 분양받기로 한 김OO, 이ΔΔ은 그 총 공급가액을 각 794,375,000원, 768,750,000원으로 한 점, ②고OO은 이 사건 오피스텔의 총 공급가액이 7억 8천만 원이며, 그 중 3억 5천만 원이며, 그 중 3억 5천만 원은 위약금으로 충당되었다고 하고 있는 점, ③ OO지방국세청 소속 직원이 김OO, 김◎◎(이ΔΔ의 남편)로부터 받은 각 확인서에 의하면, 김OO는 794,375,000원, 이ΔΔ은 768,750,000원에 분양받았고, 김OO와 이ΔΔ이 실제로 납입한 대금과 위 각 분양금액과의 차액은 위약금과 상계하기로 하였다고 하는 점, ④ 원고가 이 사건 오피스텔을 분양받을 당시 38평형의 일반분양가액은 4억 5천만 원 상당이었는데 그보다 평수가 훨씬 큰 51평형의 분양가액이 4억 3천만 원이었다고 보기는 어려운 점, ⑤ 원고는 여러 가지 사정을 들어 위약금 3억 5천만 원을 포기할 수밖에 없었다고 하나 원고가 들고 있는 여러 가지 사정을 감안하더라도 3억 5천만 원이나 되는 위약금을 아무런 조건 없이 포기할 수밖에 없었다고 하나 원고가 들고 있는 여러 가지 사정을 감안하더라도 3억 5천만 원이나 되는 위약금을 아무런 조건 없이 포기하였다고 보기 어려운 점 등에 이 사건 변론과정에 나타난 제반 사정을 종합하여 보면, 원고는 위약금 3억 5천만 원을 이 사건 오피스텔에 대한 분양대금의 지금에 충당하는 형식으로 지급받은 것으로 봄이 상당하다.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's argument.

(2) Whether the substance over form principle is violated

The key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff received penalty of KRW 3.5 million from the GoOO, and as seen above, the Plaintiff received penalty of KRW 3.5 million, and this constitutes other income provided for in Article 21(1)10 of the Income Tax Act. Moreover, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s profit derived from the instant officetels was the sales premium of KRW 38,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.