Cho High Court Decision 2008Do1841 (Law No. 204.04.20)

Whether the amount received in excess of the deposit upon termination of the early lease contract is other income

If the purchase cost of the right to lease premium is the cost required to request a new place of business replacing the existing place of business from among the amount paid in excess of the deposit agreed upon the termination of the early lease contract and the contract is cancelled, it is reasonable to view that the amount was paid

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The part of the disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 563,762,622 against the Plaintiff on December 10, 2007, which exceeds KRW 291,979,170, out of the disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 563,762,62, which the Defendant rendered to

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 50% is borne by the Plaintiff, and 50% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

The disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 563,762,62, and 622 imposed on the Plaintiff on December 10, 2007 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On May 24, 2002, the Plaintiff leased the lease term of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 25 million from May 3, 2002 to KRW 60 months from May 3, 2002 (hereinafter “instant contract”). The Plaintiff leased the lease term of KRW 300,000,000,000 from May 3, 200 to KRW 30,000,000,000 for the first floor and second floor of the building (hereinafter “instant building”).

나. 원고는 2002. 5. 25.경 원고의 형인 김★★으로 하여금 이 사건 사업장에 대한 인 테리어공사를 마치게 한 다음(이하 '이 사건 공사'라 한다) 2002. 7. 9.부터 이 사건 사업장에서 '○○미장'이라는 상호로 미용업을 영위하였다.

C. In order to remove the instant building and to construct a new building on the site, the lower court requested the Plaintiff to clarify the name of the instant workplace on May 2003, 2003.

D. On May 15, 2003, the Plaintiff, between the non-party company and the non-party company, ordered the non-party company to order the place of business of this case until June 30, 2003, but the non-party company agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 2 billion including KRW 300 million of the lease deposit of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”).

E. From May 15, 2003 to June 30, 2003, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2 billion from the non-party company in accordance with the instant agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”). However, when the Plaintiff returns the amount of comprehensive income tax reverted to year 2003, the Plaintiff did not report the amount of KRW 2 billion as the amount of income.

F. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff paid 3,516,840 won as global income for the year 2003 as global income. However, based on the Plaintiff’s report, the Defendant issued a notice of global income tax amounting to KRW 6,968,763 as global income tax for the year 2003 after partly correcting the tax base and tax amount.

G. Since then, among the agreed amount of 2 billion won in this case, the Defendant deemed that the remaining KRW 1.788 billion, excluding the deposit of this case KRW 300,000,000,000 other than the deposit of this case excluding the deposit of KRW 300,000,000 as other income as stipulated in Article 21 (1) 10 of the Income Tax Act, constitutes the penalty and damages received due to a breach or termination of a contract, which is the other income as stipulated in Article 21 (1) 10 of the Income Tax Act, and included the amount in total income of the amount of global income tax for 2003 years, the Defendant additionally decided and notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax of KRW 1,013,18,240 for 203

아. 원고는 이 사건 당초 처분에 불복하여 2008. 5. 6. 조세심판청구를 하였는데, 조세 심판원은 2009. 4. 20. 이 사건 약정금 20억 8,800만 원에서 임대차보증금 3억 원을 공제한 17억 8,800만 원을 기타소득으로 보되, 김★★에게 지급한 인테리어공사비 7억 9,210만 원과 원고의 직원들에게 지급한 위로금 2,890만 원을 합한 8억 2,100만 원을 필요경비로 공제하는 것으로 과세표준과 세액을 경정하라는 취지의 결정을 하였다.

I. On May 8, 2009, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 563,762,62, and KRW 5622 of the global income tax for the Plaintiff for the year 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) by revising the tax base and amount of tax in accordance with the determination of the said Tax Tribunal and reducing KRW 449,425,618 from the tax amount of the initial disposition in this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, 7, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 4, each of the statements, arguments

The purport of the whole

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's principal

(1) 원고가 2003. 10. 25. 김★★에게 지급한 4억 원

원고는 김★★에게 인테리어공사비로 12억 원을 지급하였는데, 위 4억 원도 위 12억 원에 포함되어 있다. 조세심판원은 위 4억 원을 제외한 7억 9,210만 원만을 인테리어공사비로 인정하여 과세표준에서 제외하였다. 원고가 2003. 10. 25. 김★★에게 지급한 4억 원도 인테리어공사비로 인정되어 과세표준에서 제외되어야 한다.

(2) KRW 4770 million paid by the Plaintiff as premium

In order to seek a new business place replacing the instant business place, the Plaintiff acquired a right of lease on a new building, and paid to the previous lessee KRW 477 million as premium (hereinafter “the instant premium”). The instant premium includes expenses incurred in seeking a new business place in the amount of KRW 2.088,000,000,000,000 for the instant contract amount. Therefore, the said KRW 477,000,000 shall be excluded from the other income as damages paid by the Nonparty Company to the Plaintiff in order to compensate for actual damages suffered by the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

(1) As to the first argument

(A) Facts of recognition

1) 원고는 2002. 5. 25.경 김★★에게 이 사건 사업장의 인테리어공사를 도급 주었는데, 김★★이 공사를 진행하는 중 이 사건 건물의 천장이 무너져서 재시공을 하게 되어 공사기간이 2002. 5. 25.경부터 2002. 7. 30.까지 65일이 걸렸다.

2) 원고는 2003. 10. 25. 김★★에게 4억 원을 지급한 것을 비롯하여 2003. 9. 9.부 터 2004. 4. 7.까지 김★★에게 11억 9,210만 원을 지급하였다.

3) 김★★은 2003. 10. 31.부터 2003. 11. 7.까지 서울 ◆◆구 ◇동 607-4 지상의 다세대주택 6채를 구입하였는데, 2003. 10. 25.자로 원고로부터 받은 4억 원을 위 다세대주택의 구입대금으로 사용하였다.

4) The Plaintiff’s fixed assets used for business on the Plaintiff’s financial statements are indicated as KRW 12 million.

5) 김★★은 서울 □□구 ■동 412-67에서 1999. 4. 12.부터 2003. 12. 31.까지 '△△목공'이라는 상호로 목공업을 영위한 간이과세자인데, 이 사건 공사로 인한 매출에 대해 부가가치세를 신고하지 않았고, 위 사업기간에 신고한 매출액이 500만 원에 불과하다.

6) According to the construction cost of multi-family housing announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on August 31, 2009, the construction cost of a representative housing project as of September 1, 2009 shall be calculated as KRW 4,706,000 per 3.3 square meters.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 10, 13, 14, 15, Eul evidence Nos. 7 through 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(B) Determination

원고는 공사비가 12억 원이라고 주장하면서 그 근거로 도급계약서(갑 제8호증), 견적서(갑 제9호증), 김★★의 확인서(갑 제11호증)를 제출하고 있으나 앞서 본 인정사실과 앞서 든 증거에 의하여 알 수 있는 아래와 같은 사정을 종합하여 보면, 갑 제8, 9, 11호증의 기재는 믿을 수 없고, 나아가 증인 김▲▲, 조▽▽의 증언, 갑 제6호증의 기재를 비롯한 다른 증거만으로는 원고가 2003. 10. 25. 김★★에게 지급한 4억 원이 이 사건 인테리어공사비로 지급된 것이라고 단정할 수 없으며, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없으므로, 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

① 원고가 이 법원에 제출한 공사비 견적서(갑 제9호증)에는 작성일자가 2002. 5. 10.로 기재되어 있는 반면, 원고가 이의신청시 피고에 제출한 공사비 견적서(을 제3호 증)에는 작성일자가 2002. 7. 25.로 기재되어 있어서 각 견적서가 언제 작성된 것인지 도 알 수 없고, 원고는 김★★이 하도급업체로부터 받은 견적서와 같이 객관적인 제3자가 작성한 자료는 전혀 제출하지 못하고 있는 것에 비추어 보면 그 내용의 신빙성에 도 의문이 있다.

② 만약 원고가 2003. 10. 25.자로 김★★에게 지급한 4억 원이 인테리어공사비라면, 하도급에 의하여 공사를 진행한 김★★으로서는 사업기간 동안의 매출금액과 사업 규모 등에 비추어 볼 때 특별한 사정이 없는 한 위 4억 원을 하도급업자들의 공사대금 이나 이 사건 공사를 위해 고용한 인부들의 노무비 등으로 지급하였을 것으로 보이는 데, 앞서 본 바와 같이 김★★은 위 4억 원을 주택구입에 사용한 것으로 보아서 원고의 주장의 신빙성에 의문이 있다.

③ The construction period from May 25, 2002 to July 30, 2002 is 65 days’ simple period of construction, and the construction area is 150 square meters’ square meters’ square meters per 3.3 square meters’ square meters’ square meters, and the construction period is 1.2 billion won due to the collapse of the building, and the construction period is 1.2 billion won’s square meters, and even if the construction cost is included in the reconstruction cost, it is too short, and it is difficult to believe the contents of the contract as it is, considering that the construction cost for newly constructing a house is 4.7 million won, even if the construction cost is included in the reconstruction cost, it is too high, and it is difficult to believe the contents of the contract as it is.

4. In addition, as seen earlier, it is difficult to readily believe the construction amount under the above contract as the letter of contract (Evidence A No. 8) is difficult to believe a written estimate forming the basis for the calculation of the construction amount.

⑤ The Plaintiff himself/herself entered the fixed assets for business in the financial statements only KRW 12 billion, which is not excessively low compared to the Plaintiff’s assertion in light of the assertion that the expenses incurred by the instant construction work amounting to KRW 1.2 billion.

(2) As to the second argument

(A) Facts of recognition

1) On May 15, 2003, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the first floor store of the building 12 billion won in lease deposit and (b) monthly rent of KRW 8 million in lease deposit to 30 million in a lessee who operated a clothing store. (c) On May 15, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired the right to lease on the said store in KRW 370 million in premium.

2) In addition, on May 16, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired the right to lease the second floor store of the above building from the lessee who operated a coffee shop in the monthly rent of KRW 21 million, and KRW 2.5 million, the right to lease the second floor store of the above building in the premium of KRW 14 million from the lessee who operated the coffee shop.

3) On the other hand, the plaintiff introduced the store 1 and 2 of the above building to a new business place replacing the instant business place, and agreed that the non-party company will bear the premium to be paid at the time of the acquisition of the right of lease, thereby taking over the right of lease from 000s and 100s.

4) Although the instant contract amounting to KRW 2 billion includes KRW 477,700,000 for the instant premium in KRW 2 billion, the non-party company and the Plaintiff did not specify the instant premium in detail in the agreement (Evidence A7) pursuant to the instant agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 16 to 21, purport of the whole pleadings

(B) Determination

It is reasonable to regard "other income in the case of a compensation for damages exceeding the damages per se caused by a breach or cancellation of a contract, which is other income under Article 21 (1) 10 of the Income Tax Act, as "other income". However, in the case of a compensation for damages paid to compensate for actual damages sustained by a lessee, it is reasonable to regard "other income" as not "other income in the case of a compensation for damages paid to compensate for actual damages sustained by a lessee (see Supreme Court Decision 200223942, Apr. 9, 2004).

The following facts revealed in the facts of recognition: (a) it appears that the non-party company, upon cancelling the contract of this case due to the reasons of the non-party company, entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff to transfer the premium of this case, which is the expenses incurred in introducing and seeking a new workplace replacing the business of this case; and (b) the Plaintiff, who is engaged in beauty and beauty business, was unable to fully transfer or enjoy the business facilities of the previous lessee who operated the clothing store or coffee shop due to the acquisition of the above right of lease, or the profits arising from the business transaction of the previous lessee; (c) however, considering the Plaintiff’s inevitable payment of the premium of this case to the previous lessee in order to acquire a new business place early upon cancelling the agreement of this case due to the reasons of the non-party company, it is reasonable to view that the premium of this case was the amount paid by the non-party company to the Plaintiff as compensation for damages, and therefore, it should be excluded from the tax base of global income tax in 2003.

(3) be subject to a reasonable tax amount

원고가 2003. 10. 25. 김★★에게 지급한 4억 원은 원고에 대한 2003년 귀속 종합소득세의 과세표준에서 제외하지 않고, 이 사건 권리금 4억 7,700만 원은 그 과세표준에서 제외하여 정당한 세액을 계산하면(별지 2003년 귀속 종합소득세 계산표 참조), 원고에 대한 2003년 귀속 종합소득세의 정당한 고지세액은 291,979,170원이 되므로, 피고가 2007. 12. 10. 원고에게 한 2003년 귀속 종합소득세 563,762,622원의 부과처분 중 정당한 고지세액인 291,979,170원을 초과하는 부분은 취소되어야 한다.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.