Incheon District Court 2010Guu2573 (O1, 2011)

Early High Court Decision 2010Du0413 ( October 16, 2010)

In case of receiving the compensation in return for the smooth progress of the reconstruction project, the compensation for other income shall be applicable to the "compensation for other income."

(The same as the judgment of the court of first instance) shall be deemed to have been paid by a third party in return for a smooth progress of a reconstruction project by transferring the ownership of real estate to a reconstruction association and in return for a smooth progress of a reconstruction project. Therefore, it constitutes "compensation for other income under Article 21(1)17 of the Income Tax

2011Nu1049 global income and revocation of disposition

The two AA

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

Incheon District Court Decision 2010Guhap2573 Decided February 11, 2011

December 22, 2011

January 12, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 79,750,920 for the plaintiff on June 1, 2009.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court's reasoning is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following parts among the written judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A part which is written or added by this court in the judgment of the first instance;

O Article 2-2(b)(3)(2 - 7) shall set aside as follows. He shall set forth in the following. He / she b. related legislation

O Parts added between 5 pages 18 and 19

3) Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate to the reconstruction association as soon as possible and paid in compensation for cooperation with the rebuilding association for the progress of the reconstruction project, the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to cooperate with the rebuilding association for the progress of the reconstruction project. Thus, the Plaintiff’s payment for prompt transfer of the instant real estate and for cooperation with the progress of the reconstruction association as well as for the transfer of the instant real estate to the reconstruction association is the amount of income, that is, transfer value, in substance. However, as seen earlier, the purchaser of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff is the reconstruction association. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff was paid from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff without the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the price for the transfer of the instant real estate, and there is no objective material that Han New Public Corporation was seeking reimbursement for the instant money to the reconstruction association. Thus, the instant money should be considered as “compensation under Article 21(1)17 of the Income Tax Act.” This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

4) In addition, the Plaintiff did not sell the instant real estate at KRW 37,495, and KRW 87,00, which is the amount under the sales contract, without receiving the instant money, even if it is considered as “compensation,” and the Plaintiff ultimately incurred revenue from the reduction of the purchase price of the instant movable property in order to obtain other income equivalent to the instant money, so the Plaintiff must deduct all or part of the amount under Articles 21(2), 21(3), and 37 of the Income Tax Act, and Article 87 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. The Plaintiff asserted that the amount should be deducted from the necessary expenses under Article 21(2), 21(3), and 37 of the Income Tax Act and Article 87 of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, as alleged by the Plaintiff, for the purpose of using or consuming the amount of the sales price to obtain for the purpose of gaining the total amount of revenue and loss, as well as the amount to be deducted from the necessary expenses under Article 21(2), 17(1) of the Income Tax Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.