Busan High Court (Chowon) 2013Nu1266 ( October 19, 2014)

Appellate Decision 201J 1215 (O4.25)

It is reasonable to see that the amount received in return for taking the position as the chief director is an honorarium.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff agreed to repay the non-approval debt with respect to the transfer of the Foundation of this case, or that the Plaintiff used part of the amount actually received from the transferee to repay the non-approval debt, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the details of repayment of the non-approval debt should be excluded from the honorarium is without merit.

Article 21 of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 2014Du10493 Decided global income and revocation of disposition

IsaA

o Head of the tax office

Busan High Court (Chowon) Decision 2013Nu1266 decided June 19, 2014

November 27, 2014

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3

citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning. Then, the lower court determined that: (a) the amount of income reported by the Plaintiff from 2005 to 2007 was merely o, o,00,000 won and was not sufficient to lend a large amount of o0 million won or more to a medical corporation oo Foundation that it was the chief director; (b) the Plaintiff did not submit materials to prove the loan details in addition to the deposit and withdrawal details of the passbook account; (c) the account details submitted by the Plaintiff are mixed with the funds of the Foundation and the Plaintiff’s personal funds; (d) the details of the deposit and withdrawal of the funds were not arranged in the account books; (e) there is sufficient grounds to view that the funds of the Foundation were leaked to the Plaintiff due to the combination with such accounts, and each evidence submitted by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to be a pure source for the entire amount of funds paid by the Plaintiff to the Foundation; and (e) the Plaintiff’s deposit and withdrawal amount paid to the Foundation.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the second ground for appeal

The court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff received KRW 1.7 billion from the GangwonCC in the course of the plaintiff's resignation from the president of the Foundation and the seniorCC as the president. In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the court below determined that it was legitimate for the defendant to impose a tax on the plaintiff by deeming the total amount of o0 billion as "an honorarium as one of other income under Article 21 (1) 17 of the Income Tax Act" on the ground that the plaintiff was paid a honorarium for taking the status of the president of the GangwonCC, and cannot be deemed to have been paid to the plaintiff's foundation for the repayment of claims against the plaintiff.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal principles on honorariums

3. As to the fourth ground for appeal

Article 62 (2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 52 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that in principle, goods, manufactured goods, semi-finished goods, re-processed goods, raw materials, and other similar movable property and movable property subject to ownership shall be appraised at the price expected to be acquired at the time of disposal, but the value shall be the book value if not verified

The lower court, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, acknowledged the facts as indicated in its holding, and determined that the Defendant’s evaluation of the value of the instant medical device, etc. in accordance with the book value was lawful, on the grounds that it is difficult to believe that the entry in the appraisal report submitted by the Plaintiff as evidence that was excessive to the value of the medical device, etc. purchased by the Plaintiff was in fact, and there is no other evidence to verify the data to verify the objective market price at the time of contribution of the instant medical device, etc., or the “value anticipated to be acquired at the time of disposal

In light of the relevant provisions and records, the fact-finding and determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the probative value

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.