The damages for delay in this case constitute other income due to the breach of the property right contract.

Since the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is a monetary claim based on the agreement, the damages for delay caused by delay of a monetary obligation constitutes other income, regardless of whether or not the damages for delay based on the agreement is the damages received due to breach or termination of a contract on property rights, and thus the Defendant’s disposition of this case

Article 21 of the Income Tax Act

2018Guhap115 Global Income and Revocation of Disposition

AA

○ Head of tax office

September 7, 2018

October 19, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax ○○○ and ○○○○○○○○ on December 7, 2017, rendered against the Plaintiff on December 7, 2017, is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 15, 2005, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against BBB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BBB”) on the grounds that the contract amount under the following agreement has been secured against Busan District Court 2005j****** on November 16, 2005, “BBB” applied for payment order against the Plaintiff on November 16, 2005, 24% per annum from January 1, 2003 to the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order, and 20% per annum from the next day to the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order, and the payment order was finalized on December 8, 2005.

B. After December 5, 2005, BB sold ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in its own possession to CC on December 6, 2005, and the Plaintiff transferred the ownership of the instant real estate to CC on December 6, 2005, as the Busan District Court Decision 2005 Ta1874 on December 30, 2005, as the debtor BBB, third debtorCC, claim amount, claim amount, and claim amount were the above payment order and received a decision of seizure and assignment order on January 5, 2006.

C. On May 1, 2006,CC prepared and issued the following payment certificates to the Plaintiff.

D. Since then, on October 11, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a payment order with the Busan District Court 2012 tea***** (pre-paid installments) with the Plaintiff on October 12, 2012, with the Plaintiff on October 12, 2012, and filed a payment order with the Plaintiff on October 12, 2012.

For the period from the date of service of the original copy, 12% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, the payment order was finalized on November 2, 2012 (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

E. On the other hand, Busan District Court 2012tagi***** the voluntary auction procedure for the instant real estate, and on May 27, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted a claim statement with the following contents in the auction procedure.

F. On June 20, 2013, the Plaintiff received dividends from ○○○○○○○ on the said auction procedure, and received additional dividends from ○○○○○○○○○ on November 18, 2015, and ○○○○○○○○○ on December 23, 2015 and received the total sum of ○○○○○○○○○○○ on January 4, 2016.

G. Accordingly, the Defendant deemed the Plaintiff’s dividends as other income under Article 21(1)10 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13796, Jan. 19, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 41(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26922, Jan. 22, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) and imposed the Plaintiff’s global income tax on December 7, 2017 by deeming the receipt date as the date of the said dividends as the date of January 4, 2016, on which the said dividends were received (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

H. On December 28, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the request on May 15, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful since the damages for delay incurred by filing a lawsuit seeking the payment of total amount due to the violation of the obligation to pay the full amount arising from the attachment and assignment order, which is a kind of compulsory execution, not the contract, is irrelevant to the contract on property. Thus, the instant disposition cannot be deemed to fall under the penalty and compensation stipulated in Article 21 (1) 10 of the Income Tax Act. Moreover, the damages for delay of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. ordered in the instant payment order, which is irrelevant to the payment confirmation thatCC drafted to the Plaintiff, should not

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 21(1)10 of the former Income Tax Act provides that one of the other income shall be one of the penalty or compensation received due to a breach or termination of a contract. Article 21(4) of the same Act provides that the specific scope of other income shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree. The main sentence of Article 41(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, upon delegation, refers to the compensation received due to a breach or termination of a contract concerning property rights, which refers to the value of money or other goods to compensate the damages exceeding the original payment itself, regardless of the title thereof. Article 41(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "the compensation or compensation received due to a breach or termination of a contract" shall be limited to "the compensation received due to a breach or termination of a contract concerning property rights" (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu9799, Apr. 19, 200).

2) As seen earlier, on May 1, 2006,CC prepared a written confirmation of payment with the purport that “the Plaintiff will pay ○○○○○○○○○○○ by December 31, 2008, but will pay interest at 12% per annum if the payment is not made by the above deadline.” The Plaintiff asserted that the above agreement exists at the time of filing an application for the payment order of this case and received the above payment order. The Plaintiff’s claim againstCC is “the monetary claim based on the above agreement.” Thus, the delay delay damages due to the delay of monetary obligation constitutes “compensation due to the payment itself, regardless of whether the contract is due or due to the breach or termination of the contract on property rights,” and constitutes “other income” (the Plaintiff’s written confirmation of payment is null and void if the payment was completed by the construction of the apartment, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim that the payment order of this case would not be made under the premise that the payment order of this case would be made under the premise that the payment order of this case would not be made under the said agreement.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

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.