The instant brokerage fee claimed by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as necessary expenses normally paid by insurance solicitors.

In light of the process, purpose, form, amount, and weight of the insurance solicitation commission, etc. of the instant brokerage commission, it is difficult to view that the instant brokerage commission falls under ordinary expenditure of other insurance solicitors engaged in the same kind of business as the Plaintiff, and there is no reason to regard it as necessary expenses.

Seoul Administrative Court-2018-Gu 7291 Global Income Detailed and Revocation of Disposition

Mediation fees, etc. do not constitute ordinary expenses generally accepted.

The decision was made, and this result was notified to the defendant BB director who is the chief of the tax office.

C. Defendant BB director of the tax office’s tax office excludes the instant brokerage commission, etc. from necessary expenses on August 2017.

23. The global income tax that reverts to the Plaintiff in the year 2012, the global income tax that reverts to the Plaintiff in the year 2012x,x,xxx, and the global income tax that reverts to

Xx,x,xx,xx, and global income taxx,x,x,xx, and the type that reverts to the year 2014;

Consolidated income taxx,xx,xxx source was corrected and notified.

D. As indicated in the following table, the Plaintiff shall include the sum ofx,x,x, andx in the necessary expenses.

Appellants, with respect to the appeal against the Director of the Tax Tribunal on November 20, 2017

The Tax Tribunal had conducted a hearing between the Plaintiff and Defendant AA Head of the Tax Tribunal, and April 2018.

25. ① Compensation for losses and ④ Depreciation costs should be included in necessary expenses: 2012.

x,x,x,xx, andxx from the total income amount of year 2013, from the total income amount of year 2014;

From the total income amount, the tax base and tax amount shall be corrected by excludingx,x,x,xx members, and the remainder;

The appeal was dismissed.

E. Determination by the pertinent Tax Tribunal partially corrected or notified the Plaintiff’s global income tax by reduction or notification

As a result, global income tax for the year 2012 on the plaintiff shall be the global income tax for the year 2012, which shall belong to the x,x,x,xx, and to the 2013

X,xx,xx,xxx, and global income tax for the year 2014, shall belong tox,x,x,xxx and to the global income tax for the year 2015:

X,x,x,xx only (hereinafter referred to as "the first disposition of taxation") was made by the Tax Tribunal in accordance with the decision of the Tax Tribunal.

D. The remaining part which has been revoked by reduction or correction is "the disposition of this case".

F. Taxes against Defendant BB director of the tax office on September 27, 2018, while the lawsuit in this case was pending.

Although the Tribunal re-examines the appeal, the Tax Tribunal made on December 21, 2018 the same appeal on December 21, 2018

(1) or (2) or (3) or (4) or (3) or (4) or (3)

It was rejected for the reason that it was filed after the lapse of 90 days.

2. Determination of Defendant AA Head of the Tax Office on this part of the defense

A. Defendant AA Head of the tax office’s defense on this part

MM

BB Director of the Tax Office

The director of the AA Tax Office is not an administrative agency which has taken the disposition of this case, and thus is disqualified.

B. Determination

In a revocation lawsuit, the administrative agency which made the disposition, etc. shall be the defendant (Article 13 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act).

As seen earlier, the administrative agency that rendered the instant disposition against the Plaintiff is Defendant AA Tax Office.

Defendant BB Head of the District Tax Office, not the head of the District Tax Office. As such, Defendant AB Head of the District Tax Office among the instant lawsuits

(1) The part is unlawful, as it is filed against an administrative agency without standing to be the defendant.

The defense of the principal safety by the head of the defendant AA Tax Office pointing out is reasonable.

3. Determination of Defendant BB Tax Office’s defense on this part of the defense

A. Defendant BB’s defense of this safety by the director of the tax office

The plaintiff's petition for adjudication on November 20, 2017 is not the disposition agency but the defendant AA director of the tax office.

The plaintiff filed a petition for a trial on September 27, 2018 with the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the disposition office

90 days after the date of August 23, 2017 (the electronic delivery date of the duty payment notice) on which it is known that it is made.

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit of this case against Defendant BB Tax Office is subject to legitimate pre-trial procedure.

in this case.

B. Determination

According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 8, the Plaintiff’s home stack, which is the national tax information and communications network, on August 23, 2017.

the Plaintiff received a tax payment notice through B, and on September 11, 2017, the Plaintiff received the tax payment notice from the head of Defendant BB office.

The facts and sources that Defendant BB director of the tax office approved the deferment of collection on the initial disposition;

On September 11, 2017, the Plaintiff between Defendant BB director of the tax office and the director of the tax office on September 11, 2017

It is recognized that the mortgage contract was concluded with regard to real estate owned by the owner.

On the other hand, according to Gap evidence No. 26, the plaintiff's act of raising Songpa-gu Seoul on April 5, 2017.

The fact that he/she has completed a move-in report with the king 10-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, from graphicxxxxxxxxx to the lelelele

Defendant AA director of the tax office may recognize the Plaintiff from April 17, 2017 to May 24, 2017.

Defendant BB director of the tax office conducted a personal integration investigation and conducted the initial disposition on August 23, 2017 against the Plaintiff.

on November 20, 2017, the plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for a trial within 90 days from that date;

The respondent is not the defendant BB director of the tax office but the defendant has mistakenly designated the respondent as the director of the tax office.

The head of the AA Tax Office did not raise any objection against it, and the Tax Tribunal also did so.

The plaintiff and the defendant AA director of the tax office have been adjudicated by the court and according to the above ruling.

The fact that part of the global income tax imposed on the Plaintiff was partially corrected and notified is as seen earlier; and

On March 22, 2019, when the lawsuit of this case is pending upon the Plaintiff’s application, Defendant BB Tax Office’s preliminary decision.

It is obvious that the defendant was added to the defendant.

In the case where the mandatory administrative appeal system is applied, the claimant within the period of time.

(2) If the respondent has made a request for the administrative appeal but the respondent has been mistakenly designated, the administrative appeals agency also

and without correcting the respondent ex officio or at the request of the claimant, a petition for adjudication is filed.

After a ruling on the legitimacy of the ruling was made, the claimant is served with the certified copy of the ruling.

administrative litigation against an administrative agency qualified for defendant within the peremptory period during which the litigation may be filed;

(1) or (2) or (3) or (3) or (4) or (3) or (4) or (4)

Along with the fact that the defendant was corrected or added to an administrative agency eligible for the defendant while the lawsuit was pending.

In the absence of special circumstances, the action has gone through legitimate pre-trial proceedings, and the period for filing the action has not yet gone through legitimate pre-trial proceedings

It is reasonable to see that it also complies with the Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu54652 Decided December 15, 2015)

(m) Examining the facts acknowledged in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant among the instant lawsuit

Since the part on the BB Tax Office is legitimate, Defendant BB Tax Office is on different premise.

We cannot accept the main safety defense of the book.

4. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons, and thus should be revoked.

1) The instant brokerage commission was previously amended by the former Insurance Business Act (amended by Act No. 14124, Mar. 29, 2016).

subsection 4 of Article 98 (hereinafter the same shall apply) with respect to the conclusion or solicitation of insurance contracts

A price for introducing a policyholder, not a special interest (payment of premiums) provided to the subject contractor;

Inasmuch as the introduction fee paid to DD, etc. falls under the ordinary cost generally accepted:

necessary expenses shall be included in the necessary expenses.

2) The Plaintiff’s insurance solicitors, such as the maintenance and management of customer and insurance contracts, to DD and EE

Since the labor cost of KRW 29,957,045 is paid in return for assisting the work, the above labor cost is paid.

It should also be included in necessary expenses.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination as to the First Claim

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 27 (1) of the Income Tax Act shall include the amount of business income in necessary expenses when calculating the amount of business income.

Expenses corresponding to the total amount of income in the relevant taxable period are generally accepted.

(1) The term "generally acceptable" means "generally acceptable".

cost means the same situation with respect to another business operator operating the same kind of business as the person liable for tax payment;

The following expenses shall mean the expenses deemed to have been paid and shall constitute such expenses:

objectively taking into account the details, purpose, form, amount, effect, etc. of the disbursement.

Determination should be made on the expenses disbursed in violation of social order, except in extenuating circumstances.

Exclusion from the Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du12422, Nov. 12, 2009).

2) Specific determination

Evidence Nos. 4 through 23 (Evidence Nos. 4 through 21, 4 through 11)

Each entry of Nos. 2, 31, and 32 (excluding evidence of No. 31 and 32) shall include the purpose of the whole pleading.

In light of the following facts and circumstances, the conciliation fees of this case are generally accepted:

Since it cannot be viewed as a reasonable cost, the plaintiff's first proposal cannot be accepted.

A) From 2012 to 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) each month from 2012 to 18 bank accounts, including DDRs;

Totalxx,xx,xx, andxxx, the above amount was the insurance premium of insurance covered by DD, etc.

The bank account ofCC life has been transferred as it is, and detailed details are as follows.

B) In the course of the tax investigation, the Plaintiff was required to vindicate the reason why the premium was paid in substitution, at the first time

agency shall maintain the personal circumstances of the customer, the relationship with the customer, and the recovery of the agency fees for the purchase of theCC life.

It was stated that the payment of premiums was inevitable due to the reason of the Act, but the payment of premiums to customers was thereafter made.

The statement was reversed as the nature of the fee.

C) On the part of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s assertion is deemed to have been obtained through introduction of (6-7 pages), DD, etc.

The ratio of the conciliation fees of this case to the examination recruitment fees shall be from 37% to 133% according to the introduction.

There are no consistency in all, and there are cases where there are more brokerage fees than the insurance solicitation fees, and the plaintiff is the plaintiff.

The criteria for the payment of the brokerage fee of this case and the reasons why the brokerage fee is the same amount as the insurance premium.

There is no explanation to be paid for.

D) ① The Plaintiff each month regardless of the number of insurance contracts entered into through introduction of DD, etc.

The Plaintiff paid the same amount to heat, etc. (for example, the Plaintiff, as the introduction of DD, 1, 2, 2014;

At the end of March, 1, 2 cases in April, 5, 6, 7, 1 case in August, 2 case in September, 2 case in November, 13 case in November.

Recognizing that the examination contract was concluded, it shall be monthly to DDR regardless of the time of conclusion.

X,xx,xx,xxx, ② relative relatives, such as FF, the Plaintiff’s own reference, and others

In return for introducing policyholders, excessive amounts exceeding the total of KRW 00 million (as mentioned above)

The proportion of the instant brokerage commission to the insurance solicitation commission was significantly high).

It is difficult to easily understand in light of the empirical rule, and ③ the Plaintiff introduced DDR, etc.

part of the policy holders asserted that it had already entered into an insurance contract withCC by the Plaintiff.

There is no reason for the plaintiff to pay high-amount referral fees to DDRs, etc.

the plaintiff's assertion (for example, even by the plaintiff's argument, the plaintiff is introduced as DD in 2014.

HH had already entered into an insurance contract in 2013, introducing GG (the Plaintiff’s interest relationship) in 2013

Da. The plaintiff entered into an insurance contract in 2014 and 2015, and the EE (3 degrees of the plaintiff) in 2015

III, JJ already concluded an insurance contract with introduction in 2013 KK (Plaintiffs) in 2013

Mo) The plaintiff entered into an insurance contract upon introduction, and on September 26, 2015, LL was introduced by the plaintiff.

Park Byung-hee, who entered into an insurance contract with Eul, was already a corporation on January 29, 2015.

(4) Ordinary sights are introduced to introduce Lact Keys, and received x,xx,x,x, andx won as good offices fees) and (4).

DDRs, unlike the methods of joining and maintaining the examination, are similar type of life insurance through the plaintiff; or

In most cases, there have been a number of pension insurance contracts, and most of them have been cancelled after the lapse of two years (such a number of such contracts)

According to an insurance contract, the plaintiff's maximum greenhouse club operated byCC life around November 1, 2015.

In light of the fact that a member was a grader, DDR, etc. is an insurance contract with the Plaintiff.

in return for introducing a person, each such referral fee has been paid to the broker fee of this case.

calendar (each number 1 of the evidence Nos. 4 through 21) and fact-finding certificates (each of the evidence Nos. 4 through 11)

HS Heading 2, Gap’s 31, and 32 are difficult to believe it is, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

E) Ultimately, the instant brokerage commission is ultimately a recruitment or maintenance of insurance contracts by the Plaintiff, an insurance solicitor.

in order to increase his or her performance, a relative or branch who is a policyholder shall pay the insurance premium on behalf of the policyholder.

It is reasonable to deem that such an act was prohibited under Article 98 of the former Insurance Business Act.

aside from whether such special benefits are provided, the former Insurance Business Act, Article 99, even if not.

The payment of fees prohibited by section 86 of the same Act constitutes the plaintiff's business

§ 209 of the Act shall be suspended or the registration of which may be revoked, and shall be subject to an administrative fine under section 209 of the Act);

In order to impair the reliability of the examination system, to deteriorate the financial soundness of the insurance company, to further the insurance company's death.

It undermines the equity of the objection and imposes economic burdens on many good general subscribers.

Social harm, such as the process, purpose, form, and form of the payment of the conciliation fee in this case.

In light of the amount, importance of the insurance solicitation commission, etc., the instant brokerage commission is the cost.

would normally have been disbursed by other insurance solicitors operating the same kind of business.

It is difficult to see that it is reasonable.

D. Determination as to the second proposal

The following circumstances are revealed by each evidence mentioned above, i.e., DoD;

Recognizing that personnel expenses have been paid to EE, the Director of the Account (the Account: Miscellaneous level, A, 24

1-1) and the details of cash withdrawal transactions (No. 24-2 of the A), as evidence, have been submitted and the president of each account;

the date of payment of personnel expenses and the date of cash withdrawal as set forth in the Act, and the year 2012 and the year 2013

the statement of DD or EE (Evidence A 31, 32) is not in conformity with the total amount, 2) back of D or EE

There is no objective data to receive, and ③ the Plaintiff’s personnel expenses under the Income Tax Act.

(4) The Plaintiff’s consolidated income tax for the year 2012 to 2015

In addition, the above personnel expenses at the time of dismissal and payment were not included in the necessary expenses, and the Tax Tribunal

In light of the fact that the appeal filed and the appeal did not present at all, Gap No. 24

31. Assistance with the duties of insurance solicitors by the Plaintiff to DDR and EE solely on the basis of each description of the evidence 31,32

In return for the release, it is not sufficient to recognize that the personnel expenses of X,x, andx members have been paid, and otherwise;

Since there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the second chapter of the plaintiff cannot be accepted.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the part against Defendant AA director of the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is dismissed.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant BB director is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

August 16, 2019

1. The part of the lawsuit in this case against the chief of the Tax Office shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the conjunctive defendant BB director is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

(1) Claim for a claim against the primary defendant: On August 23, 2017, the disposition of imposition of the global income taxx,xx,xxxx, global income tax that belongs to the year 2013 and that belongs to the Plaintiff by Defendant AA head of the competent tax office against the Plaintiff shall be revoked in entirety. The disposition of imposition of the global income taxx,xx,xx,xxx, andxx source belonging to the year 2014 and that of the global income tax that belongs to the year 2015 shall be revoked.

(2) Claim against the Preliminary Defendant: On August 23, 2017, the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff shall fully revoke the disposition of imposition of the global income tax x,xx,xxx, and global income tax x,x,xx,xx, and global income tax x,x,x,xx, and global income tax x,x, andx, of which the year 2014 reverts to the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as an insurance solicitor belonging toCC Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CC Bio-resources”), included the insurance solicitation fees received fromCC bio-resources in the total amount of income, and included the aggregate brokerage fees for DDR, xx, xx, and xx (hereinafter “instant brokerage fees”) in the necessary expenses, and filed a comprehensive income tax for the year 2012 through 2015.

B. As a result of the personal integration investigation conducted against the Plaintiff from April 17, 2017 to May 24, 2017, Defendant AA head of the tax office deducted the necessary expenses at the time when the Plaintiff filed the return and payment of the global income tax from the time when the Plaintiff filed the return and payment.