1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as follows. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s judgment on the argument at the appellate court is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of the judgment at the appellate court as stated in Article 2(2) of the judgment at the second instance.

2. Judgment on the defendant's argument on appeal

A. The Defendant asserts that the instant money constitutes business income also asserts to the effect that it constitutes business income under Article 51(3)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24356, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter the same).

Article 51 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "the calculation of the amount of gross income on business income shall be calculated in accordance with the following subparagraphs, and subparagraph 4 provides that "the value of assets received without compensation in connection with the business and the amount of the reduced amount of liabilities due to the exemption from or expiration of debts shall be included in the amount of gross income: Provided, That this shall not apply to the case of

Whether business income falls under business income under Article 51 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall be determined according to the ordinary social norms, considering whether business income is for profit-making purposes, the scale, frequency, mode, etc. of business, and whether the degree of continuity and repetition of business activities can be seen as business activities.

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Nu8753 Decided March 28, 1989, etc.). In this case, the Plaintiff’s activities related to the occurrence of the instant money are only agreed on January 30, 2012. Although the Plaintiff is a business operator who is running a medical service through the operation of Korea Institute, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff received the instant money without compensation in relation to the Plaintiff’s business.

Therefore, the money of this case is interest.