Incheon District Court 2012Guhap1635 ( March 31, 2012)

early 201J 2846 ( December 30, 2011)

of the dividend income received in the nature of profit distribution while withdrawing from the partnership;

The income of this case received from the business relationship and received by the investor from the business relationship is similar to the "amount of money acquired by the investor due to withdrawal and the value of other property exceeds the amount required for the investor to acquire the investment," and therefore, it constitutes dividend income.

2012Nu29563 Other details of global income and revocation of disposition

AA

The director of the North Incheon National Tax Office

Incheon District Court Decision 2012Guhap1635 Decided August 31, 2012

July 19, 2013

September 13, 2013

The first instance judgment is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On July 29, 2011, the Defendant revoked the imposition of the global income tax OOOO for the Plaintiff on July 29, 201.

Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

“A. On July 29, 2011, the Defendant: (a) leased the Plaintiff to BB, but received payment from the Plaintiff, and thereby obtain interest income from the Plaintiff (i.e., OO members - OO members, and hereinafter “the instant income”); and (ii) it constitutes a change in the tax base for global income for 2009 under Article 16 (1) 12 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1090, Jul. 25, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the ground that it constitutes a non-business profit under Article 16 (1) 12 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”); (b) The Defendant: (c) obtained the same income from the first instance; and (d) obtained it from the partnership relationship with BB; and (e) constitutes a change in the tax base for global income and a change in the tax base for global income that is identical to that of the Plaintiff’s total tax amount for 10 years after the change in the tax base for global income and other tax base for 17 years.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) Plaintiff

"BB, without any specific consideration agreement, invested a total amount of OOO in the relationship between the Plaintiff and BB, obtained shares equivalent to 1,652.9 square meters among the 1148-2 15,009 square meters of OO-Gu O-si O-si O-si O-si (hereinafter "the instant orchard"), but it was paid to the Plaintiff by BB as a result of the instant case, etc., under which BB provided nursing, etc. in his/her subordinate region at the time of the operation. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant income falls under the dividend income is unlawful, and the Defendant 2) cannot be deemed to fall under the dividend income under Article 17 of the Income Tax Act.

"The plaintiff invested a total amount of OO in the partnership with BB, and withdraws from the partnership, and received OOOO on the deposit amount equivalent to 1652.9 square meters of the instant orchard, so the income of this case, which is the difference between the above amount of investment received by the plaintiff and the above deposit money, constitutes a dividend income under Article 17 (1) 9 of the Income Tax Act (the income similar to the income under subparagraphs 1 through 7, in the nature of profit distribution). Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate."

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

In addition to the entry of Gap 1 through 4, Eul 1 through 4, and Eul 1 through 4, the entry of the corresponding part of the first instance judgment is as follows (No. 21 to 5 pages 13). (No. 21).

10) BB acquired a total of 30 real estate through a real estate auction from around 2003 to 2009, transferred 15 real estate during the same period, among which, the land acquired through a real estate auction around 2004, OO-gun OO-gun Otel No. 152 Otel No. 301, OO-gun No. 152 Otel No. 301, and OO-Gun land all were awarded a successful bid in the name of the plaintiff, and on May 24, 2004, the plaintiff agreed that BB paid the proceeds from the auction in the case of a real estate auction by auction by OO district branch at around 2003ta6922.

D. Determination

1) Whether it constitutes dividend income

위 인정사실 및 앞서 든 각 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들 즉，① BBB이 비교적 짧은 기간 내에 30여 건의 부동산을 취득하고 15건의 부동산을 양도 한 사정과 원고가 BBB에게 총 OOOO원을 투자하였을 뿐 아니라 BBB이 원고의 명의로 수차례 부동산을 경락받고 원고가 BBB을 대신하여 경락대금을 납부하기 도 한 사정 등에 비추어 원고와 BBB은 경매 등을 통한 부동산판매업을 공동으로 하였다고 볼 수 있는 점，② 공동사업으로 인한 소득은 그 각 지분 또는 손익분배비율에 의하여 분배되거나 분배될 금액에 따라 각 소득금액을 계산하여야 하고， 동업관계에서 탈퇴할 때 수령한 금전 기타 재산의 가액 중 출자금을 초과하는 부분은 과세대상 소득이 된다고 할 것인 점(대법원 1995. 11. 10. 선고 94누8884 판결 참조)， ③ 소득세법 제17조제1항제9호는 '제1호 내지 제7호의 소득과 유사한 소득으로 수익분배의 성격이 있는 것'， 제3호는'의제배당'을 각각 배당소득으로 규정하고 있고， 한편 같은 조 제2항 제1호는 '퇴사 ・ 탈퇴나 출자의 감소로 인하여 사원이나 출자자가 취득하는 금전 기타 재산의 가액이 사원이나 출자자가 당해 출자를 취득하기 위하여 소요된 금액을 초과하는 금액'을 의제배당으로 본다고 규정하고 있는바， 위 규정들의 취지는 배당 및 분배금 등과의 과세형평상 사원이나 출자자 등이 현금배당 및 주식배당 이외의 방법으로 얻는 실질적 이익에 대하여 소득세를 부과하려는 것으로 보이는 점， ④ 2002. 1. 1.부터 시 행된 구 소득세법(2001. 12. 31. 법률 제6557호로 개정된 것)이 제17조제1항제7호를 신설하여 '제1호 내지 제6호의 소득과 유사한 소득으로 수익분배의 성격이 있는 것'도 배당소득으로 보아 동일하게 과세하도록 하는 유형별 포괄주의를 도입하였는바， 이는 사회경제의 발전에 따라 새롭게 발생 또는 출현하는 수익분배의 성격을 갖는 소득도 배당소득에 포함시켜 과세기반을 확대하고 과세의 형평성을 제고하기 위한 것으로서 그 취지에 비추어 소득분배의 주체를 법인에만 한정하지는 아니한 것으로 보이는 점 등을 종합하여 보면， 원고가 BBB과의 동업관계로부터 탈퇴하면서 수령한 이 사건 소득은 그 실질에 있어서 소득세법 제17조제1항제3호 및 제2항제1호에서 규정한 '탈퇴로 인하여 출자자가 취득하는 금전 기타 재산의 가액이 출자자가 출자를 취득하기 위하여 소요된 금액을 초과하는 금액에 유사한 소득'으로 같은 법 제17조제1항제9호에서 말하는 '제1호 내지 제7호의 소득과 유사한 소득으로서 수익분배의 성격이 있는 것'에 해당하여 배당소득에 해당한다고 봄이 상당하다.

2) Conclusion

Ultimately, the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant income acquired by the Plaintiff from a partnership with BB falls under the dividend income subject to taxation under the Income Tax Act is lawful. Therefore, the prior Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise of objection is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance with different conclusions is unfair, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.