Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap40902 ( October 30, 2010)

Seocho 209west 2286 (Law No. 29, 2009)

Cases of determining the exclusive contract amount as other income;

It is reasonable to view that the exclusive contract amount is not paid continuously and repeatedly in return for the provision of services, but it is temporary and preferential income paid in return for the preferential advantage in competition with other companies with exclusive and excellent advertising video editing capabilities of the plaintiff separately from the above.

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

1. All appeals by the Defendant are dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 43,941,30 (an amount of KRW 43,941,00,000 on global income for the year 2004 as of February 2, 2009) and global income tax of KRW 17,853,50 on global income for the year 2003 as of May 1, 2009 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

The reasons for this Court concerning this case are as follows: (a) it is difficult to evaluate the 7th fifth day of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) 3 million won of the business income earned by the plaintiff from △△△ Co., Ltd. in 2008 is the income accrued after the expiration of the exclusive period stipulated in the instant exclusive contract, except for adding "the income accrued after the expiration of the exclusive period specified in the instant exclusive contract." Therefore, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. All of the defendant's appeals are dismissed.