Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap31140 ( December 09, 2010)

Cho High Court Decision 2010west040 (2010.05.04)

The price for the name of the building received by the lessee shall be the other income by penalty.

The amount received by the lessee of a building as the price for the name of the building shall be the penalty paid due to the breach or cancellation of the contract, and shall constitute other income.

2011Nu190 Detailed global income and revocation of disposition

SAA

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap31140 decided December 9, 2010

June 16, 201

August 18, 201

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 imposition of global income tax of KRW 62,351,430 against the plaintiff on May 29, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following parts among the written judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall accept this 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 of the written judgment of the court of first instance prepared by this court;

"All circumstances that appear in the oral argument, such as the fact that the 9th 13th eth eth eth eth eth e.g.

In light of the fact that the plaintiff appears to have paid the above 10,000 won to the 8A, the plaintiff submitted the sub-lease contract (Evidence 3) made between the plaintiff and the 20,000 won as the sub-lease deposit to the 8A, but the plaintiff did not submit the above contract to the 1st instance court even though he asserted that he paid the sub-lease deposit to the 80,000 won to the 8,000 won, it seems that the plaintiff prepared the above contract because the body of the 20,000 won in the above contract is similar to the signature of the plaintiff, and it seems that the 8,000 won in the above sub-lease contract was made by the 40,000 won in consideration of the fact that the 10,000 won in the above sub-lease contract was made by the 8,000 won in the above sub-lease contract and that the 3,000,000 won in the above sub-lease contract was made by the plaintiff.

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.