Suwon District Court 2010Guhap9762 ( December 23, 2010)

Compensation for losses incurred due to failure to obtain the ordinary performance profits shall be other income.

(As in the judgment of the court of first instance, the "damage to the payment itself which is the contents of the future contract" refers to the positive damage to the benefit itself which is the object of the contract, so the damage compensation is excluded from the object of the contract, but the "damage exceeding the loss" refers to the damage caused by the failure to obtain the increased amount of the property that would have been incurred if the contract was performed properly, and therefore the damage compensation is subject to other income.

2011Nu6402 global income and revocation of disposition

KimA

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap9762 Decided December 23, 2010

August 17, 2011

September 7, 2011

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The imposition of global income tax of 406, 292, and 590 won imposed on the Plaintiff on February 5, 2010 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff ordering the cancellation below shall be revoked. The defendant shall February 2010

5. The imposition of global income tax for the year 2007, 406, 292, and 590, which shall be in excess of 316,59, and 972, which shall be charged to the Plaintiff (additional tax) shall be revoked.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this court's ruling are as follows, and they are cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 11420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

O The following shall be added to 9th Judgment of the first instance court, 11th:

[No.4] The principle of confirmation of right under the Income Tax Act, which sets the time of attribution of income under the premise that income is realized when income is not realized, and when income is generated, it is the principle that tax is imposed in advance on income in the current year. However, in the principle of confirmation of right, the concept of "determined" cannot be defined as a general principle which is not an exception to the time of attribution of income, and it should be determined on the basis of whether the income is considerably mature and fixed enough enough to realize income (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du809, Jul. 9, 200), and even in accordance with the above legal principle, it should be determined on the basis of the above legal principle that the plaintiff had the right to the sales contract of this case at the time of cancellation of the contract of this case, as well as the right to the penalty of this case at the time of cancellation of the contract of this case, and that the plaintiff had the right to manage the penalty of this case after the completion of the contract of this case, and it should not be considered that the plaintiff had the right to manage the penalty of this case.

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.