Appellate Decision 201J 1215 (Law No. 125, 2012)

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

In light of the fact that the foundation and the chief executive officer concluded a contract to transfer the foundation as a separate legal entity, even if it is difficult to see the substance of the contract to transfer the foundation, and there is no evidence to prove that the claim that the foundation repaid or offsets the provisional payment of the foundation, which is the former chief executive officer, has retired and the Plaintiff received in return for the new chief executive officer's appointment, it is reasonable to regard the amount that the Plaintiff

2012Guhap2274 Global income and revocation of disposition

ThisAAA

Head of Changwon Tax Office

May 21, 2013

June 18, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 of the global income tax for the year 2007, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on August 1, 2010 (referred to as “the date indicated in the complaint, August 25, 2010,” appears to be a clerical error), and the Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 of the global income tax for the year 2005, and KRW 000 of the global income tax for the year 2006, for the year 2007, which was imposed on the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 3, 2005, the Plaintiff established a medical corporation BB medical foundation BB medical foundation (hereinafter referred to as the “instant foundation”) and took office as the president of the said foundation, and on November 23, 2007, the Plaintiff retired from the office of president on November 29, 2007.

B. On August 1, 2010, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the instant foundation, and the Plaintiff received KRW 000 from GangwonCC when transferring the position of president of the instant foundation, deeming that the Plaintiff’s transfer of the position of president of the instant foundation constituted a honorarium, other than other income under the Income Tax Act, and subsequently corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the global income tax for the year 2007 (hereinafter “instant First Disposition”).

C. In relation to the Plaintiff during the taxable year of 2005-2007, the Defendant: (i) 00 won omitted in the report of rent; (ii) 000 won for heating processing and purchase; and (iii) 000 won for the Plaintiff’s personal expenses, which the Plaintiff personally released; (iv) 000 won for the Plaintiff’s personal expenses; and (v) 000 won for the Plaintiff’s personal expenses, which the Plaintiff voluntarily released the Fund of the Foundation; and (v) 000 won for which the Plaintiff’s wife voluntarily released the Fund of the Foundation; and (v) 2000 won for the Plaintiff’s global income and 200 years for which the Plaintiff’s global income tax belonged to the Plaintiff, and 200 years for which the Plaintiff’s global income tax belonged to the Plaintiff, after acquiring medical equipment from the Plaintiff; and (v) 2000 won for each other’s global income tax (excluding deductible expenses); and (v) 200 years for the Plaintiff.

D. As to the disposition No. 1 of this case, the Plaintiff filed an objection on October 28, 2010 and February 21, 2011.

On March 15, 2011, the Tax Tribunal filed a request for an inquiry with the Tax Tribunal, and filed a request for an inquiry with the Tax Tribunal on the disposition No. 2 of this case on December 17, 2010, but was dismissed on April 25, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-speed facts, Gap evidence 1, evidence 1, evidence 2, evidence 2, and evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) With respect to the instant disposition No. 1, and 000 won that the Plaintiff received from GangwonCC was not merely a reward received by the Plaintiff for the transfer of management rights of the instant foundation, but the GangwonO calculated the actual value of real estate and medical equipment owned by the instant foundation, and paid the difference between assets and liabilities to the Plaintiff. The settlement amount includes the difference between assets and liabilities, and it should be deemed that the instant foundation actually repaid the Plaintiff’s provisional payment, since the Plaintiff previously lent the instant foundation (which is not included in the account book). However, the Defendant imposed the comprehensive income tax on the Plaintiff by deeming the total amount of the said money as a honorarium, and thus, the said disposition is unlawful.

2) Of the disposition of this case No. 2, the above Paragraph (1) through (7) is partially repaid out of the total sum of KRW 000,000 lent by the Plaintiff to the Foundation of this case, and the disposition of bonus by deeming it as the Plaintiff’s income is unlawful.

3) Of the instant disposition No. 2, among the instant disposition, the items 1-C, and the value of the medical equipment that the Plaintiff transferred to the instant foundation is 000 won higher than the actual acquisition price of the medical equipment of the instant foundation. Therefore, it cannot be deemed as having taken over the instant foundation’s medical equipment. Moreover, denying the calculation of unfair practices and disposing of it to the Plaintiff is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) First, we examine the disposition No. 1 of this case.

"Honorary money determined by the Income Tax Act" means money and valuables provided as a group of cases in connection with administrative affairs or provision of services, and the determination of whether such money and valuables should be made by comprehensively taking into account the motive and purpose of receiving the money and the relationship with the other party, amount, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu20304, Jan. 15, 199). The fact that the Plaintiff resigned from the office of the Foundation and made the Gangwon-gu take office as the president, while the Plaintiff received KRW 00 from the Gangwon-CCC in the process is not disputed between the parties. As a separate legal entity of this case, even if the Plaintiff and the president of the Foundation entered into a contract to transfer the Foundation in substance, it is difficult to see that it is a contract to transfer the assets of the Foundation in question to the Gangwon-O, and that it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff received or loaned the money from the president to the Foundation by taking account of the nature of the Plaintiff’s retirement, and that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to receive or borrowed money from the Foundation.

2) The following facts are considered as to the Plaintiff’s Disposition No. 1 (1) through (7) of the evidence that the Plaintiff’s account was insufficient to prove that the Plaintiff was not subject to taxation by 0,000 won, and if it was proved that the Plaintiff’s account was not subject to taxation by 0,000 won, and that the Plaintiff’s account was not subject to taxation by 0,000 won, and that the Plaintiff’s account was not subject to taxation by 20,000 won, and that the Plaintiff’s account was not subject to taxation by 0,000 won, and that the Plaintiff’s account was not subject to taxation by 0,000 won, and that the Plaintiff’s account was not subject to taxation by 20,000 won, and that the Plaintiff’s account was not subject to taxation by 0,000 won, and that the account was not subject to taxation by 20,000 won, including the remaining amount of the account of 20,000 won.

3) As to Article 1-3(3) of the Disposition No. 2 of the instant case

The plaintiff submitted an appraisal report (A evidence 5-1 and 2) on the value of the medical device taken over by the foundation of this case, and according to the witness Kim Jong-soo's testimony, the plaintiff was given advice from the person who sells the medical device as discussed by the plaintiff, and evaluated the value of the medical device without confirming the medical device during the medical season, and it is hard to believe the above appraisal report as it is. Otherwise, there is no evidence to verify the objective market price of each medical device at the time of contribution to the foundation of this case, and there is no evidence to verify the expected value to be acquired again when disposing of the medical device in accordance with Article 52 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Accordingly, the value of the medical device above should be determined based on the book value calculated by subtracting depreciation costs from the acquisition value under Article 52 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and the plaintiff evaluated the value at the time of acquiring the medical device at around July 199 by DD Hospital as it is, and the plaintiff's disposition against the plaintiff as a wrongful calculation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.