Daegu District Court 2015Guhap23467 ( October 22, 2016)

The amount of this case received by the plaintiff constitutes other income under the Income Tax Act.

The Plaintiff’s honorarium received from Nonparty 000 constitutes other income under the Income Tax Act, not real estate investment funds, and the instant disposition is justifiable.

Article 21 of the Income Tax Act

2016Nu4844 Global income and revocation of disposition

AA

BB

National Rotations

October 14, 2016

November 25, 2016

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 defendant's decision shall be revoked. The defendant's global income tax of 313,921,020 won, penalty tax of 174,975,981 won, global income tax of 2012, global income tax of 313,921,020 won, penalty tax of 174,975,981 won, global income tax of 2013, global income tax of 90,364,663 won, penalty tax of 37,421,04 won, local income tax of 2012, and local income tax of 2013,

12,778,570 won shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why the court should explain the instant case are partially dismissed or added as follows.

In addition, evidence submitted by the Plaintiff at the trial, which is the aggregate of KRW 1.4 billion paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff eight times from August 18, 2012 to January 26, 2013, with the Plaintiff’s maximum amount of KRW 1.4 million.

The testimony of a witness of the court at least AA who is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff was invested in the process of constructing a commercial building, not the honorarium received from the lowestA to help to enter into a service contract for the approval of hazardous material facilities between BB, and that the plaintiff was a money invested in the process of constructing a commercial building.

section 8(2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act, inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment.

It is quoted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Private Litigation Act as it is.

○ “16 January 16, 2013” in the table No. 8 payment date at the second bottom of the judgment of the court of the first instance.

26.The term "the 26."

○ In addition, from the fourth bottom of the first instance judgment, ‘public health stand', ‘after the second instance judgment' is a significant fact to the court.

○ From the fourth bottom of the first instance judgment to the second and third parts, the following shall be added:

Underline 3, '2 '2 '3' is '4)'.

- 3-

“3) The criminal judgment of the court in an administrative litigation if the judgment related to the criminal litigation has become final and conclusive.

Recognizing the fact that it is difficult to employ a practical judgment, unless there are special circumstances to deem it difficult to do so.

[Judgment of the court below]

It is added that 'the cash of 10th 5th 10th 10th 10th 1st 5th 1st 5th 1st 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2006'

○ Forms 6 through 14 of the first instance judgment are as follows.

“C) With respect to the new construction and lease of a commercial building, the Plaintiff and the LA shall be subject to ownership by the Plaintiff and the LA.

In addition to the building site, the investment ratio of the Plaintiff to the construction cost of KRW 90,000,000,000,000,00

Done at 71.18%, LA 28.82%, the 18 August 18, 2012 Written Elimination of Investment, as the case may be, and

Then, LA shall be the 1.24 billion won (the 1.14 billion won and the 1.4 billion won and the 1.4 billion won and the 1.4 billion won and the 1.4 billion won

Investment shall be made by including the sum of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,00

The Statement on June 1, 2013, which changed the ratio to Plaintiff 56.7% and the largestA 43.3% to June 1, 2013

The plaintiff prepared and accepted the payment of the contract price in cash with respect to the issues of this case to the leastA.

(4) The Plaintiff issued receipts (No. 6 No. 1 to No. 8) and issued receipts. 1 to the Plaintiff on the premise that it would be difficult for the Plaintiff to pay KRW 100,000,000 to the Plaintiff on August 18, 2012, KRW 150,000,000,000, and KRW 17,000,000 to the Plaintiff on September 22, 2012, and KRW 180,000,000,000,000 to the maximum amount of KRW 10,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff on August 18, 2012, the Plaintiff was 200,000,000,000,000 KRW 10,000,000,000 from August 13, 201 to January 26, 2013.

In light of the fact that the above assertion is difficult to be paid, each of the above investment termination notes and the present construction cost.

There is a strong doubt about the authenticity or credibility of the receipt for acceptance and transfer of gold.

○ The 8th court decision of the first instance court on the ground of the circumstances such as the 7th court decision, etc., and the plaintiff led to the confession of the facts constituting the crime in the above 3th court decision of the court below, and there were some circumstances to deem the confession false.

The reason is that it cannot be seen as ‘for reasons that it is impossible.'

○ sentenced ‘the 8th sentence of the first instance judgment' and ‘the 9th sentence of the first instance judgment' thereafter, the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is because the plaintiff did not appeal.

2. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall conclude this conclusion.

- 5-

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s appeal is justifiable, it is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

partnership.