Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap6325 (No. 30, 2011)

Seocho 208west 4127 (Law Firm 09.07)

The date of accrual of other incomes shall be deemed the date of actual payment.

According to the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the time of receipt of the total amount of other income shall be the date of receipt of the payment. Thus, the time of accrual of income shall be the date when the plaintiff received it.

2011Nu35028 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing income tax

XX

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 201Guhap6325 decided September 30, 2011

August 17, 2012

September 21, 2012

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 imposition disposition of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on January 1, 2010, which the Defendant rendered on January 1, 201, shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) on January 11, 2010, the first sentence of Article 1-3(3) of the judgment of the court of first instance, (b) on January 1, 2010, and (c) 254 of the first sentence of Article 2-3(2) of the judgment of the court of first instance, respectively, (c) 250; and (b) on the assertion that the plaintiff made in this court, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, (c) on the grounds that the plaintiff added

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) According to the agreement between the Plaintiff and the U.S.A. on March 10, 2003 (Evidence 9) written between the Plaintiff and the U.S.A., it can be known that the U.S.A. agreed to pay KRW 000 to the Plaintiff by September 15, 2003. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the U.S.A. against the Plaintiff was occurred on September 15, 2003. In this case, the Plaintiff’s income was also generated, and thus, the time when the income accrued should also be seen as 203 years.

2) The U.S.A. entered into a secondary share acquisition agreement on the ground of OB and SongCC, the nominal lender, without any prior notice prior to the payment of the purchase price. The secondary share acquisition agreement is invalid as it constitutes a false representation in collusion with the U.S. in collusion with KimD for the purpose of excluding the Plaintiff from OO acquisition business. In addition, KimD, the share transferor, was obligated to give notice of transfer having a fixed date to the Plaintiff pursuant to the first share acquisition agreement so that it can satisfy the requirements for setting up against a third party by giving notice of the transfer with a fixed date to the Plaintiff. The second share acquisition agreement constitutes a juristic act contrary to social order and thus null and void.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, the facts cited above, the evidence and the evidence set forth in Nos. 11-1, 2, 13, and 14 of the evidence No. 11-2, and the overall purport of the pleadings, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

1) On February 25, 2003, the United StatesA entered into the second stock acquisition agreement and acquired shares in its own name with a third party to commit an act in violation of the instant partnership agreement. The Plaintiff was paid the income corresponding to the other income under Article 21 (1) 10 of the Income Tax Act in return for the Plaintiff’s claim for damages or the waiver of the claim for damages under the first stock acquisition agreement, as seen earlier. However, according to Article 50 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the time when the income from the other income is received shall be the date when the receipt is made. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the time when the income from the key income falls under the 2004 year from January 30, 2004, which belongs to the date when the Plaintiff received the key income. Moreover, the key income is clear that the Plaintiff’s claim is not a KRW 00,000, but is actually paid.

2) Under the agreement, on February 14, 2003, the initial balance payment date under the first stock acquisition agreement, the Plaintiff entered into a new stock acquisition agreement with the U.S. and the U.S.A. on February 14, 2003, and signed and unmanned on each letter related to the pre-sale business. The instant business that the Plaintiff agreed to waive shall be deemed to mean the pre-corporate acquisition and pre-sale business, which is the object of the instant agreement, and the pre-sale business. The instant business should be deemed to mean the pre-sale business, which is the pre-sale business, and the pre-sale business after the Plaintiff decided to waive the pre-sale business as above, the second stock acquisition agreement between the U.S. and KimD was concluded on February 25, 2003; the Plaintiff and the U.S.A. on March 10, 2003, concluded the pre-sale agreement with the Plaintiff on March 10, 2003, and did not constitute a pre-sale contract with the Plaintiff on September 10, 2015.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.