logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.02.18 2015구합54933
기타소득세 원천분 부과처분 취소청구
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into a sales promotional event agency contract with Punocar Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Punocar”), which imports and sells alcoholic beverages, and paid the amount of ex-ante contract (hereinafter “colation payment”) according to the terms and conditions of the contract to KIKO (referring to employees who may affect consumers’ choice at an amusement business establishment, such as Keyman, president, manager, and marina) according to the sales of alcoholic beverages as listed below.

The sum of the amount paid for the formation of the instant case to the year to which this year belongs shall be KRW 9,05,052,471,040 in 2011 6,382,875,530 in total, 2010

B. The Plaintiff withheld and paid income tax on the income calculated by deducting 80% of necessary expenses by understanding it as “other income corresponding to the cost received for temporarily providing services, without any employment relationship, for which allowances or other similar costs are paid” under Article 21(1)19(d) of the Income Tax Act.

C. Around 2013, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, and as a result, determined that the amount of the protocol payment in this case falls under “a recompense” under Article 21(1)17 of the Income Tax Act, and applied the withholding tax rate on the entire amount of the protocol payment in this case on January 2, 2014, the Defendant imposed upon the Plaintiff each other income tax (including additional tax) for the year 2010, 2011, and 2012 as indicated in the “Disposition List” attached hereto.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 28, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on December 2, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 3, Gap evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The instant disposition is lawful.

arrow