Changwon District Court 2013Guhap671 ( October 01, 2013)

Cho High Court Decision 2012 father091 ( December 10, 2012)

The imposition of a global income tax on other income shall be justifiable in cases of a disposition imposing a global income tax.

(The same as the judgment of the court of first instance) Even though the facts of the crime received amount are fraud, the fact that the substance of the crime does not differ from the bribe or the honorarium, and that the person controls and manages the honorarium by the date of the completion of the tax payment, constitutes other income under the Income Tax Act, even if it is illegal income due to the criminal act.

Article 21 of the Income Tax Act

(original)2013Nu10345 global income and revocation of disposition

Park AA

Head of Changwon Tax Office

Changwon District Court Decision 2013Guhap671 Decided October 1, 2013

May 22, 2014

June 12, 2014

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 disposition taken by the Defendant on May 4, 201 against the Plaintiff on May 4, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

"The reasons why the court explained on this case are as stated in the part of the first instance judgment except for the addition of "the additional determination of the second and second instance court" to the plaintiff's new assertion in the trial. Thus, it refers to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act."

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Defendant considered the received amount as a bribe and imposed it as other income, the Defendant added the grounds for disposition corresponding to other income in the first instance trial, which was unlawful as the Defendant’s new taxation disposition.

B. Determination

Since the subject matter of a taxation disposition lawsuit is objective existence of the tax amount determined by the tax authority, the tax authority may submit new data that can support the legitimacy of the tax base or amount of tax recognized in the relevant disposition, or exchange and change the former reasons within the scope of maintaining the identity of the disposition, and it is not always possible to determine the legitimacy of the disposition by only the data at the time of the disposition or to claim only the reasons for the disposition at the time of the disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du7277, May 24, 2012).

Although the facts added by the defendant's reason for disposition are apparent as alleged by the plaintiff, it is only different from the composition of taxation requirements and legal evaluation as to a single objective factual basis that the plaintiff obtained other income by receiving the amount of received in this case, and it does not change the basic facts which form the reason for taxation. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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