Seocho 2010west 1628 ( October 24, 2010)

It constitutes business income with fees of attorney, and the time of attribution shall be when the need to carry out the lawsuit no longer exists.

Since it is reasonable to deem that the amount received from a construction company is paid as an attorney’s fee pursuant to a contract of delegation of lawsuit which is implicitly made, and the entire amount constitutes business income, and that the provision of service is completed when the need to carry out the lawsuit ceases to exist

2010Guhap43631 global income and revocation of such disposition

Doz.

O Head of tax office

April 29, 2011

May 20, 2011

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The imposition of global income tax of 190,641,250 won by Defendant GG Head of the tax office on September 24, 2009 against the Plaintiff on September 24, 2009 and the imposition of KRW 19,064.120 on September 24, 2009 by Defendant HH head of the tax office shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence No. 5, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1.

A. On March 9, 1995, the Plaintiff, an attorney-at-law who opened a law office and operates an attorney-at-law business on March 2, 2000, paid 200,000 won for the expenses related to the registration delegation contract amount (hereinafter referred to as the "registration delegation contract amount") and 3.8 million won for the provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of possession and the claim for site delivery lawsuit (hereinafter referred to as the "priority lawsuit"), but the Plaintiff did not file a global income tax report on the remainder of the amount excluding the amount of 61.818,000 won, part of the amount when the global income tax return was filed for the global income tax for 200 years.

B. On May 15, 2006, the director of the EE Tax Office paid BB Construction the Plaintiff the amount of the registration delegation contract and the key amount as the attorney fee (the “prepaid cost on the cash and cash return of BB Construction”), but on August 17, 2000, requested the return of the dispute (hereinafter “request for the return of dispute”), the registration delegation fee and the key amount are the Plaintiff’s business income, and the Plaintiff’s provision of the service was completed at the time of the request for the return of the issue, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction of KRW 404,124,910, global income tax for the year 2000, and the head of the EE EE Tax Office corrected KRW 40,412,490, the resident tax for the year 200, 100, as notified by the EE Tax Office.

C. Meanwhile, around May 2005, BB Construction filed a lawsuit claiming the return of the amount of the registration delegation contract (hereinafter referred to as "related civil lawsuit") against the plaintiff, and the Seoul Central District Court 2005Gahap38497 (Seoul High Court 2006Na24843) and received a favorable judgment on November 15, 2006 from the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2006Na24843). The above judgment became final and conclusive around April 2007.

D. In accordance with the relevant civil judgment, the Plaintiff returned the registration delegation contract amount and damages for delay thereof to BB Construction, the director of the EE tax office decided on June 13, 2008; and the head of EE on October 23, 2008 to exclude the portion corresponding to the registration delegation contract amount from each of the above dispositions (hereinafter referred to as “the disposition of global income tax and resident tax for 200 years remaining after reduction or correction”).

E. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with this court seeking the cancellation of the previous disposition of this case (this court 2008Guhap10157) on the ground that the dispute amount against the EE head of the EE head and the EE head of the Gu is not a lawyer's fee, but a service is not completed at the time of request for return of the issue.

F. The court rendered a judgment revoking the previous disposition of this case on Nov. 19, 2008 on the ground that the amount of the dispute amount on Nov. 19, 2008, most of the above litigation (hereinafter referred to as "relevant administrative litigation") was paid as a lawyer's fee for the disputed lawsuit. However, as the plaintiff and BB construction were finally excluded from the dispute development project, the plaintiff and BB construction were finally excluded from the dispute development project, the plaintiff's service cannot be deemed to have been completed in the year 2002 where the necessity of the plaintiff's service to carry out the lawsuit was lost, regardless of the fact that the provision of the plaintiff's service was completed in the year 2002 where the plaintiff's service was requested to return the issue, and the above judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

G. Accordingly, the head of the EE Tax Office revoked the previous disposition of this case and notified the head of the Defendant GG Tax Office having jurisdiction over the changed domicile of the Plaintiff. On September 24, 2009, Defendant GG Tax Office imposed KRW 190,641,250 of the global income tax for the Plaintiff in 2002, and Defendant HH imposed KRW 19,064,120 of the resident tax for the Plaintiff on September 24, 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The key issue amount is not the attorney fee, but the BB Construction paid the Plaintiff as advance payment along with the registration delegation contract amount for the purpose of promoting the key development project. Even if the key amount is the attorney fee, the Plaintiff’s refund of KRW 150,685,000 for delay damages for the registration delegation contract amount to BB Construction, and the Plaintiff’s reimbursement of stamp, transportation expenses, food expenses, business trip expenses, etc., so such amount of income should be deducted. Furthermore, even in the relevant administrative litigation, the Defendants recognized that the amount of KRW 360,000 is the attorney fee, which is the business income. Nevertheless, the Defendants considered the entire amount of KRW 38,00,000 as the attorney fee.

2) Around 2002, the Plaintiff’s provision of the service was not completed. BB Construction, in order to enter into a contract with the JJ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “JJ”) to arbitrarily use the text of the instant conciliation decision, entrusted the Plaintiff with consultation, and the Plaintiff’s provision of the service continued in 2003. The Plaintiff’s provision of service is not simply completed due to the completion of the instant lawsuit, but only a part of the lawsuit was pending.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 9-1, 2, 10, 2-1, 3, and 4, and Eul evidence No. 4.

1) Circumstances leading to the establishment of BB Construction and the promotion of key development projects

A) Conclusion of delegation agreements between the Plaintiff and Park K

(1) On September 27, 1999, Park KK promoted promoted the key development project and it was difficult to implement the project due to the lack of funds, and on September 27, 1999, entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff on September 27, 199 that the Plaintiff shall deposit investment funds and enter into a sales contract for the said land, but shall pay 400 million won in advance and one apartment bond as remuneration for the instant project (hereinafter “basic agreement between the Plaintiff and Park K”), and did not pay 400 million won in advance.

(2) Meanwhile, in addition to the above basic agreement between the Plaintiff on the same day, Park K-K entered into a delegation contract with the Plaintiff on the commencement of the registration of apartment units subject to the development project in the event that the development project is completed by setting the commencement amount as KRW 200 million, but in the event that the development project is not implemented due to the special agreement, the Plaintiff entered into a delegation contract with the Plaintiff to return the commencement amount after deducting the cost to investors (hereinafter referred to as the "registration delegation contract"), and entered into a delegation contract with the Plaintiff on the commencement of the contract to designate the commencement amount as KRW 2 million per household, and the "provisional order for the prohibition of occupancy transfer" as KRW 20 million per household (hereinafter referred to as the "contract for the delegation of lawsuit at issue"), and the contract for the delegation of lawsuit was not stipulated in the special agreement for the same return as the registration delegation contract at issue and the contract for the delegation of the registration contract at issue and the contract for the commencement of the above contract was not made.

B) Conclusion of BB Construction’s establishment and investment-related contracts

(1) In order to invest in the development project at the Plaintiff’s recommendation, Y was claimed not to directly invest in Park K, but to establish a separate company and invest in the company for the implementation of the project at issue. On December 6, 1999, L and Park K were established, and L and Park K were appointed to the joint representative director.

(2) On February 28, 200, a contract related to the investment of the LL and Park K, the Plaintiff and Park K, respectively, was entered into with the following terms and conditions (hereinafter referred to as “investment-related contract”). The main contents are as follows:

(A) Contracts between LL and Park K

(1) L and Park K shall establish a new corporation suitable for the implementation of the instant project and perform the said project as a joint representative.

(2) 55% of the shares of BB Construction shall be allocated to leL 35% to leL.

(3) L shall lend the required cost of KRW 2.2 billion to a new corporation, and Park K shall be responsible for purchasing the project site, relocating tenants in the project site, etc., entering into a construction contract with one military construction enterprise, granting authorization and permission from the competent authority, and entering into a trust contract.

④ In order to guarantee the claim against KRW 2 billion out of KRW 2.2 billion loaned by leL, Park K shall set up a provisional disposition and a collateral security on the other site in order to secure the claim against 2 billion won out of 2.2 billion won, and deliver a written statement of assignment of all the shares held by leK and a written statement of refund of KRW 200 million in the design contract amount to leL, and have a contracting agent deliver a written return agreement to leL with respect to all the affairs of apartment registration.

(5) Where Park K has failed to perform his/her duty, all of its shares shall be transferred to L without undergoing the settlement process, and shall be retired from his/her position as an executive officer.

(B) Contracts between the Plaintiff and Park K

① The Plaintiff and Park K shall establish a new corporation suitable for the implementation of the instant project.

② 10% of the shares of BB Construction shall be allocated to the Plaintiff, and 35% shall be allocated to Park K.

③ The Plaintiff shall attract investment and loan KRW 2.2 billion to a new corporation, and Park K shall be responsible for purchasing the project site, relocating tenants in the project site, etc., entering into a construction contract with one military construction enterprise, obtaining authorization and permission from the competent authority, and concluding a trust contract.

④ In order to secure the claim against KRW 2.2 billion that the Plaintiff lent, Park K-K shall set up a mortgage on the provisional disposition and other sites in the business site for KRW 2 billion, and deliver a letter of transfer of all shares owned by Park K-K to the person designated by the Defendant, and the registration contract amount of KRW 200 million shall be issued to the contractor’s agent.

(5) Where Park K has failed to perform his/her duties, he/she shall transfer all of his/her stocks to a person designated by the plaintiff without undergoing settlement procedures and retire from office as an executive officer.

(3) On February 28, 200, the date when the investment-related contract was signed, the agreement was signed between the Plaintiff and LL (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement on Return of the Deposit for Registration Delegation”) and the agreement was signed, and the Plaintiff (A) and L (B) shall agree as follows, and shall be faithfully performed in good faith in accordance with the good faith principle. ② A shall receive KRW 200 million registration deposit from BB Construction at the same time as the contract for purchase of the site for the development project was signed, ③ the said down payment shall be returned to B after deducting various expenses, such as filing an application for provisional disposition, mortgage, etc., and ④ the said down payment shall be returned to B when it is impossible to proceed with the project upon receipt of the notice of the non-development of the project from the relevant government office, and ④ the effect of this agreement immediately executing the said apartment project with the approval of the implementation of the development project at issue from the relevant government office, and Park K signed and sealed this agreement as a observer.

C) Purchase of project sites

(1) On March 1, 200, 200, BB Construction entered into a sales contract with 10,806,600,660,000 won for the purchase of 10,80,000 won, which is the site for the development project, from the Daejeon DDdong 91-47 and 69 parcels, which are the site for the development project (hereinafter referred to as "non-party clan") and paid 1,080,660,000 won for the down payment.

(2) According to the above sales contract, BB Construction is responsible for the removal of ground on the above land and compensation for relocated residents, and BB Construction may cancel the contract without any condition until October 31, 2000, which is the intermediate payment payment date, when it is impossible to implement the pertinent development project or when it is subject to the cancellation of the construction of apartment or the disposal by an administrative agency.

2) Payment of registration delegation contract amount and key amount

A) On March 2, 200, the day following the conclusion of the sales contract between BB Construction and the non-party clan, at the Plaintiff’s office on March 2, 2000, EM, who is the joint representative director of BB Construction, reported the Plaintiff on the conclusion of the sales contract or the above contract. In this place, the Plaintiff demanded that the Plaintiff immediately pay KRW 580,000,000,000 as the registration delegation contract amount, and Park K and EM refused payment on the ground that there is no reason to pay the above amount. The Plaintiff made a dispute with the intent to add the key development project itself.

B) Inasmuch as this MF explained the circumstances of telephone to L, AL directly made the Plaintiff and made a telephone call, and then paid MF KRW 580,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff. In accordance with the direction of L, MF withdrawn 580,000 won from the NB bank deposit account in the name of BB construction on the same day and delivered to the Plaintiff as a check. The Plaintiff, respectively, prepared and issued a receipt with the amount of KRW 20,000,000,000,000, as the recipient, and the amount of 38.0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, as the receipt with the content of the contract for registration delegation, the provisional disposition prohibiting transfer of possession

3) Demanding the return of the issue and removal from office for Park K.

A) On August 11, 200, ParkK returned to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 580,000,000,000 in the name of 'BB Construction Co., Ltd.' to us for the dispute development project, which is delayed due to our circumstances, but us requested the return of 'I will pay the cost of the preservation registration and possession in the previous provisional disposition (hereinafter referred to as 'the first request for return'), and on August 17, 2000, she again requested the return of the amount of the registration contract to the Plaintiff on August 17, 200, she requested the return of the amount of the registration contract to 'I will not have any specification that should have to be kept in the same way as above even if it had been kept in the possession of 3.8,00,000 won, the request was made to return to the us for the first time (the dispute).

B) On August 21, 200, the Plaintiff sent to GamK a content-certified mail stating that “I will know that you would not have any legal title for the claim for return of you would be the cost of lawsuit not for custody but for the amount of KRW 3.8 million.” Accordingly, I would like to say that you would not have legal title.”

C) On the other hand, as Park K was unable to pay investment funds or dividends because it did not enter into a construction contract with a construction company of one group and was unable to obtain a loan from a financial institution, the Plaintiff and LL were dismissed from office as a BB construction officer on September 8, 200, and LL acquired all BB construction stocks held by Park K.

4) Circumstances after the Plaintiff’s performance of the lawsuit and the cancellation of the sales contract

A) For the implementation of the key development project, the Plaintiff began to proceed with the litigation by receiving a letter of delegation from the clan members entrusted with the title of the land owned by the non-party clan and filing an application for civil conciliation for removal, etc. of approximately 120 households among the unauthorized buildings of about 180 households on the site of the key development project. However, according to the contents of the sales contract at issue, the Plaintiff did not receive all the costs of the lawsuit from the non-

B) Meanwhile, as seen above, as Park K did not enter into a construction contract with a group of construction businesses and did not obtain permission from the competent authorities, the BB construction terminated the sales contract for the clans on October 24, 2000 prior to October 31, 200, which is the time limit for cancellation of the sales contract.

다) 쟁점 매매계약이 해제된 이후에도 소외 종중이 쟁점 매매계약에 따른 계약금을 반환하지 아니하자, BB건설은 소외 종중을 상대로 쟁점 매매계약상의 계약금 반환청구 소송을 제기하였고(이하 '매매대금반환소송'이라 한다, 대전지방법원 2000가합 11359), 위 소송이 항소심에 계속 중이던 2002. 8.경 윤LL(주식회사 PPPPP의 대표이사로서)은 소외 종중으로부터 쟁점 매매계약과 마찬가지로 무허가 건축물의 철거 등 관련 소송에 따른 비용을 책임지는 조건으로 매매대금을 총 88억 원으로 한 매매계약을 제의받기도 하였고, QQQQQQQ 주식회사에 110가구에 대한 법원 조정결정문 등과 BB건설의 소외 종중에 대한 매매대금 반환채권 등을 포함한 쟁점 개발사업권을 66억 원에 매도하려는 약정체결을 협의하기도 하였다.

D) On November 30, 2001, the Plaintiff continued to hold a lawsuit in the name of the clan members of the non-party clan, and the non-party clan also knew that the Plaintiff continued the lawsuit. On November 30, 2001, the Plaintiff sent a notice stating that the details of the case and the case number are known to the Plaintiff.

E) From around August 2002, JJ argued that it acquired the right to operate the key development project under the condition of "the relocation and the completion of the litigation for removal of the site for the dispute development project" from the Ro General Construction Representative S, and that it received a large amount of funds from NB, BB construction reached an agreement with the non-party clan and the non-party clan around October 22, 2002, and made the non-party clan withdraw the appeal. On April 16, 2003, J conducted a litigation for removal of the building without permission on the project site at the expense of the head office with the delegation of the non-party clan in order to implement the dispute development project. Upon completion of the litigation for removal for more than two years from the head office, the non-party 1 took over the right to use the land as a document required for the decision on the above project site without the consent of the head office and provided a large amount of funds to the non-party 5 billion won to the head office by obtaining the right to use the land as a security for the loan.

(v) the progress of relevant civil action;

A) Around May 2005, BB Construction filed a related civil suit against the Plaintiff, and received a favorable judgment on November 15, 2006 from the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2006Na24843) of the said lawsuit. In the relevant civil lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the registration delegation contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and Park K and the Plaintiff and that the contract was not a party to the contract. However, in the relevant civil judgment, the pertinent civil case acknowledged that the Plaintiff was liable to return the registration delegation contract to the Plaintiff, insofar as the sales contract was rescinded on the grounds that “the conclusion of the contract between the Plaintiff and Park K, the developments leading up to the conclusion of the investment-related contract between the Plaintiff and the LLL, and the developments leading to the establishment of the RR construction.”

B) Meanwhile, BB Construction did not claim the return of the key amount in the relevant civil procedure to the Plaintiff.

D. Determination

1) Determination on the Plaintiff’s first argument

(6) The Plaintiff’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 3’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 3’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 3’s non-party 2’s non-party 3’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 3’s counter-party 3’s.

2) Judgment on the second argument by the Plaintiff

In light of the following circumstances revealed in the above recognition theory and the argument of this case, i.e., ① Y, the representative director of BB or BB Construction, despite the cancellation of the sales contract, tried to conclude a new contract with the non-party clan or a third party by asserting the right of acquisition following the performance of the lawsuit through the Plaintiff even after the termination of the contract, but the contract was finally excluded from the key development project by the JJ on August 2002, ② the Plaintiff’s performance of the lawsuit until 2002, there is no objective evidence to deem that the lawsuit was conducted by the Plaintiff, but ③ even if BB and the JJ were to enter into a contract with the JJ to receive compensation for the arbitrary use of the text of the lawsuit conciliation, it is reasonable to view that the contract was completed in most of the issues in the lawsuit, or that there was no material to deem that the contract was actually concluded, and that the necessity of the Plaintiff’s provision of the lawsuit was no longer complete in 202 years since the need to perform the lawsuit was finally excluded from the key development project by the Plaintiff and the JJ.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and 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.