Seocho 2018west 4230 ( December 14, 2018)

The Plaintiff’s right to the second-minutes incentive shall be deemed to have been mature and finalized after 2017 when the company subject to technology transfer received the second-minutes incentive from the company subject to technology transfer.

The Plaintiff’s right to the second-minute incentive shall be deemed to have been mature and determined after 2017 when the company subject to technology transfer received the second-minute incentive from the company subject to technology transfer, and even if the relevant corporation did not separately prepare the technology fee incentive calculation mark in 2017, such determination does not change.

Articles 12 (Non-Taxable Income) and 20 (Earned Income) of the former Income Tax Act;

2019Guhap59271 Disposition of revocation of refusal to correct income tax

the United Nations A

Head of Seocho Tax Office

August 13, 2019

October 17, 2019

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s rejection of correction of KRW 169,745,285 of the global income tax for the year 2017 against the Plaintiff on June 15, 2018 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a professor or researcher affiliated with the Korea ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “BB”) (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiffs”). The Plaintiff, together with other teachers and staff members (hereinafter referred to as “in the instant case”), claimed a “non-clock inducing the instant invention,” which is a candidate for the high-level cancer treatment chemicals, to be capable of undermining the single-pinaculation, and BBB andCC Co., Ltd. jointly completed the patent application and registration of the said invention xx.x.x.x. x. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant patent”).

B. BB made a contract for the transfer transfer of all of the patent ownership shares of the instant case with DoDDDD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Korea DoDDDDDD') by providing BB with a written waiver of the right ownership shares of the instant inventor to DoDDDD, but Korea DoDD entered into a contract for the transfer of technology with BB with 1,50,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as 'the first-minute royalty') within six months from the date on which the conditions of the instant patent transfer were fully fulfilled (hereinafter referred to as 'the second-minute royalty') and the remainder 1,50,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as 'the second-minute royalty') within six months from the date on which the said conditions were fully fulfilled.

C. BB completed both the provision of a letter of waiver of the right and the transfer of shares, and received KRW 1,500,00,000 from Korea-JapanDD on x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x. x.x. determine the amount of incentives for royalties for each person eligible for the payment of the above amount and the amount of incentives for royalties for each person eligible for the payment. Since then BB made payment to the Plaintiff on x.x.x. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. 450,409,425 won as the first-minute incentive, the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 14389, Dec. 20, 2016; hereinafter referred to as the “former Income Tax Act”) by deeming the amount to be exempt from taxation as other income provided for in Article 12 subparagraph 5(d) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 14389, Dec. 20, 2016).

D. BB received KRW 1,50,00,00 from x.x.x. x.x. x.x. x. x. x. x. provide the Plaintiff with the second-minute incentive, 450,409,425 won, which shall be deemed as income subject to taxation under Article 20(1)5 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 14389, Dec. 20, 2016; hereinafter referred to as the “ Income Tax Act”) as amended by Act No. 14389, BB paid only the remaining difference after withholding the income tax. Since then BB made the year-end tax settlement on the Plaintiff’s earned income for 2017 from x. x. 207,725,745 won (including local income tax, 208, 294, 297, 299, 309, 294, 297, 296, etc.).

E. On April 18, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that the second technology royalties incentive constituted other income subject to non-taxation for the year 2016, and filed a claim for correction with the Defendant seeking income tax refund of KRW 169,745,285 (i.e., KRW 207,725,745 - KRW 37,980,460). However, the Defendant rejected the second technology royalties incentive on June 15, 2018 on the ground that the second technology royalties incentive for the year 2017 constituted income belonging to the income subject to non-taxation for the year 2017 (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”).

F. On September 12, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 12, 2018, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on December 14, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 13 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The issue of whether to pay the second-minute incentives to the Plaintiff and the specific amount thereof has already been determined in 2016, and only the payment was made in 2017, so the second-minute incentives to the Plaintiff should be deemed to have been attributed to not only the first-minutes but also the second-minutes incentives to the Plaintiff in 2016. Therefore, the second-minutes incentives constitute other income subject to non-taxation under Article 12 subparag. 5(d) of the Income Tax Act before the amendment. Nevertheless, the Defendant issued the instant disposition of refusal to reject the Plaintiff’s request for correction on the premise that the time when the second-minutes incentives are attributed to the income subject to taxation under Article 20(1)5 of the Income Tax Act after the amendment on the premise that the time when the second-minutes incentives are attributed to the Plaintiff

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 39 (1) of the Income Tax Act provides that "the year to which the total amount of income and necessary expenses of a resident are attributed shall be the taxable period to which the date when the amount of income and necessary expenses are determined are determined." Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act delegated by Article 39 (6) of the Income Tax Act stipulates the time of income for each type of earned income, but there is no provision concerning the employee invention compensation added as one of earned income in Article 20 (1) 5 of the Income Tax Act after the revision

On the other hand, the right confirmation principle, which is the principle of determining the time of attribution of income under the Income Tax Act, is not the time when income is realized, but the income of the year concerned is deemed to have been realized at the time of the occurrence of the right, and the income of the year concerned is to be assessed in advance on the premise that it will be realized in the future. However, the concept of "determined" in the right confirmation principle should not be defined as the general principle that is not an exception to the time of attribution of income. Further, the time of attribution should be determined on the basis of whether the income is considerably mature and finalized to the extent that there is a high possibility of realizing the income, considering the specific issues, including the management and control of income, the degree of the income generated, and the timing of securing the taxpayer's money (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu19154, Jun. 13, 199; 201Du809, Jul. 9, 200

2) Specific determination

BB’s “B 1B Guidelines for Transfer and Sale of Goods” (Evidence B 6) provides that “The amount of incentives for 20 years shall be calculated according to the standards set forth in the following subparagraphs.” If royalties are collected in advance or in lump sum by bill or other payment method, the Plaintiff’s 1 year (from January 1 to December 31 of each year) shall be classified into “1,” and if royalties are collected in 20 years, the Plaintiff’s right to receive royalties for 20 years shall not be determined by the rate of the 6th anniversary of the revenues of the relevant year, whichever is less than the 10th anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 4th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2017.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.