National High Court Decision 2007No1082 (Law No. 22, 2007)

Whether a penalty is other income

Since it is reasonable to deem that a penalty related to the cancellation of an office for sale in lots was appropriated for the payment of part of the purchase price of an office for sale in lots as other income, it is reasonable to deem penalty as

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 21 of the Income Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 160,477,860 for the year 2004 against the plaintiff on September 8, 2006 (the date of the above disposition seems to be a clerical error in September 1, 2006).

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in the absence of dispute between the parties, or by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings in each description of Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 3-1:

A. On November 21, 2001, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract (total sales price of 350,000,000) with the representative OOOO and OOOOOO-dong 3, 54-73 Otel 102,203 (28 square meters), and on November 21, 2001, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract (total sales price of 350,000,000 won) with the OOO-dong 3,54-73 Otel 303 (38 square meters). On November 21, 2001, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff to terminate the sales contract and pay twice the payment paid by the Plaintiff.

B. However, since construction of a double-story 38 square meters promised by OO was in violation of the Building Act, it became impossible to carry out the construction. Accordingly, on May 3, 2004 between the Plaintiff and OOO, the sales contract was concluded for the above officetel 102 Dong 2003, and again, the sales contract was concluded for the 105 Dong 3002 (51 square meters; hereinafter “the instant officetel”). Meanwhile, until the agreement on the initial sales contract was reached, the sales price paid by the Plaintiff was KRW 350,000,000, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 80,000 to OO after the conclusion of the sales contract for the instant officetel.

C. The defendant, according to the taxation data notified by the director of the regional tax office of OO, deemed that the plaintiff appropriated 350,000,000 won for the sales price of the instant officetel for the sales price, and notified the plaintiff on September 1, 2006 as global income tax of 2004 as global income tax of 160,477,860 won (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

D. The Plaintiff filed a request with the National Tax Tribunal on March 16, 2007 upon filing an objection against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on May 22, 2007.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Under the premise that the actual sale price of the instant officetel is KRW 768,750,00,00, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff appropriated KRW 350,000,000,000, which was the remainder after subtracting the initial payment of the instant officetel from the initial payment of the said sale price, as the penalty paid by the Plaintiff from the OO. However, the Plaintiff was not subject to a disposition imposing penalty under the premise that the Plaintiff received KRW 350,000,00 from the initial sale price of the instant officetel under the condition of the construction of a multi-story, and the construction of a multi-story is not possible by the competent authority. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was not subject to a disposition imposing penalty under the premise that the Plaintiff received KRW 350,00,000,000 for the initial payment of KRW 350,000,000 for the instant officetel, which is a substitute officetel, and was ultimately subject to a correction notice by the competent authority.

(2) Even if the Plaintiff acquired economic benefits from the acquisition of a substitute officetel, it is deemed that the price increase from November 2001 to June 2004 of the 38th officetel’s 38th officetel’s 2004, which the Plaintiff could have originally acquired, is naturally attributable to the Plaintiff, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff acquired penalty. Therefore, without considering such substance, the instant disposition, which was deemed unlawful as it was based on the balance calculated by subtracting the amount paid by the Plaintiff from the sales amount of the substitute officetel’s 2004, on or around June 2004, based on the fact that the Plaintiff acquired economic benefits from the acquisition of the substitute officetel’s 38th officetel’s 38th officetel’s 204.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the above evidence: Gap evidence No. 6 through 9, Gap evidence No. 12, Eul evidence No. 2-1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 3-2, and the whole purport of the pleadings:

(1) OO OO구 OO동3가 54-73 OO 오피스텔은 총 5개동 421세대이고, 그중 원고가 분양받은 복층38평은 총4세대가 분양되었는데, 원고는 102동 2003호를 350,000,000원에, 이OO은 101동 2002호를 350,000,000원에, 이ΔΔ는 102동2002호를 300,000,000원에, 김OO는 103동 2002호를 350,000,000원에 각 분양받았다.

(2) OOO은 위 복층 38평형 4세대에 대하여 분양계약대로 북층으로 시공하였는데, OO특별시 OO구청장은 2004. 4. 28.경 원고를 비롯한 위 이OO, 이ΔΔ, 김OO에게 원고 등이 당초 분양받은 복층 38평 오피스텔은 건축법 제9조(건축신고)를 위반하여 무단 증축(복층)한 건축무로서 2004.5.17.까지 자진철거하여 원상회복하고 만일 시정기간 내에 원상회복하지 아니하는 경우 행정조치(단전, 단수 등)를 취할 예정이라는 내용을 통지하였다.

(3) The plaintiff entered into a sales contract with OO on May 3, 2004 for the instant officetel, which is located at the top of the 30th floor, and the total supply value of which is KRW 768,750,000, is stated in the contract, and the plaintiff later paid KRW 80,000,000 to OOO on August 30, 2004, as the correction order for an unlawful building, such as the above paragraph (2) of the head of OO Special Metropolitan City OO, and eventually, it is impossible for the plaintiff et al. to construct a sub-story on the 38th floor that the plaintiff et al. purchased.

(4) 한편 원고와 같이 복층38평형 오피스텔을 분양받은 이OO, 김OO, 이ΔΔ도 기존의 분양계약을 합의해지하고, OOO과 사이에 원고와 마찬가지로 51평형의 오피스텔을 다시 분양받기로 하는 분양계약을 체결하였는데, 그들의 분양계약서상 분양가액은 김OO가 794,375,000원(103동 3002호), 이ΔΔ가 350,000,000원(105동 3002호), 이OO이 430,000,000원(101동 2002호)이었다.

(5) 원고의 남편인 김ΔΔ는 2005. 8. 22. OO지방국세청 소속 직원이 팩스로 보내온 '확인서'에 자신의 이름과 주민등록번호를 기재한 후 이를 OO지방국세청 소속 직원에게 다시 팩스로 보내주었는데, 그 '확인서'에는 2001년 38평 복층인 102동 2003호를 350,000,000원에 분양받았다가 복층시공이 법률적으로 허용되지 않아 결국 2004. 5. 3. 51평형인 105동 3002호를 768,750,000원에 분양받았고, 그 분양대금으로 기존 38평 복층형에 대한 불입액 350,000,000원에 80,000,000원을 추가로 불입하여 총 430,000,000원을 OOO에게 지급하였으며, 너머지 분양대금은 당초 분양계약의 위약금(350,000,000원 의미)과 상계하는 것으로 하여 완납처리하였다고 기재되어 있다.

(6) On August 22, 2005, KimO also entered his name and resident registration number in the "written confirmation sent by facsimile" sent by an employee of the regional tax office, and sent it by facsimile to an employee of the regional tax office. The "written confirmation" stated that the sale price was set at KRW 102,00,000, which was 350,000, which was 38,000,000, which was 300,000, which was 350,000, which was 300,000, which was 51,000 square meters on April 16, 2004, under the condition that the construction of the sub-story was not legally permitted, the sale price was again set at KRW 794,375,00,00,000,000 for the pre-existing 38,000,000 won for the multi-story type.

(7)OOO은 2005. 9. 21. OO지방국세청에 원고와 김OO, 이OO에게 지급하여야 할 위약금 350,000,000원과 이ΔΔ에게 지급하여야 할 위약금 255,000,000원은 원고와 김OO, 이OO, 이ΔΔ가 분양받기로 한 위 각 51평에 대한 분양대금의 일부로 충당되었으므로 소득세를 과세할 때 위 각 위약금 상당액이 필요경비로 산입되어야 한다는 내용의 소명서를 제출하였다.

(8) On the other hand, OOO also purchased OOtel No. 54-73 Otel No. 104 3002 (51 square) from OO. The total value of supply in the sales contract is KRW 768,750,000.

(9) OOO은 원고와 김OO, 이OO, 이ΔΔ에게 복층38평형으로 분양하고자 하였던 위 4세대를 단층으로 다시 공사한 후 일반 분양하였는데 그 분양가액은 모두 450,000,000원이었다.

(10) OO행정법원 2007구합26186호 종합소득세부과처분취소 사건에서 감정인 김★★은 2004.6.25. 당시 이OO이 분양받은 102동 3002호(51평)의 시가가 586,500,000원인 것으로 감정하였다.

D. Determination

(i)whether to receive penalty;

위 인정사실에서 본 다음과 같은 사정 즉,① 원고와 같이 북층 38평형을 분양받았다가 다시 51평형을 분양받은 김OO의 분양계약서에 위 51평 오피스텔에 대한 공급가액이 794,375,000원으로 기재되어 있는 점.② 이 사건 오피스텔의 공급자인 OOO도 OO지방국세청에 이 사건 오피스텔의 공급가액이 780,000,000원이고, 그 중 350,000,000원은 위약금으로 충당되었다는 소명서를 제출한 점, ③ OO지방국세청 소속 직원이 원고의 남편인 김ΔΔ와 김OO로부터 받은 확인서에, 원고는 768,750,000원, 김OO는 794,375,000원에 각 51평 오피스텔을 분양받았고, 원고와 김OO가 실제로 납입한 대금과 위 각 분양금액과의 차액은 당초 분양계약에서의 위약금으로 상계하기로 하였다고 기재되어 있는 점, ④ 원고가 이 사건 오피스텔을 분양받을 당시 단층 38평의 일반 분양가액은 450,000,000원 상당이었는데 그보다 평수가 훨씬 큰 51평형의 분양가액이 단층 38평형과 같은 430,000,000원이었다고 보기 어려운 점, ⑤감정인 김★★은 2004. 6.25. 당시 이OO이 분양받은 102동 3002호(51평)의 시가가 586,500,000원인 것으로 감정한 점. ⑦ 이 사건 오피스텔은 최상층에 위치한 소의 펜트하우스라 불리우는 것으로서 향후 그 희소성으로 인한 프리미엄이 상당할 것으로 보이는 점과 이 사건 변론과정에 나타난 제반 사정을 종합하여 보면, 원고는 위약금 350,000,000원을 그 분양대금의 일부 지급에 충당하는 방식으로 이 사건 오피스텔을 분양받은 것으로 봄이 상당하다 할 것이다.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that there is no penalty of 350,000,000 won is without merit.

(2) Whether the substance over form principle is violated

However, as the plaintiff had been sold in lots at 38 square-type officetels as it was impossible for the plaintiff to execute the construction of the sub-story due to the correction order of the competent office, the sales contract was concluded with the OO for the first time between the sales contract was concluded, and again the office of this case located on the top floor of the so-called pentthyas to be sold in 768,750,000 won was made, and some of the sales price was paid in the way of offsetting the penalty of 350,000,000 won for the initial sales contract to be paid by OOO to the plaintiff. Thus, it cannot be viewed that there was no violation of the substance over form principle under the disposition of this case where the defendant imposed the penalty of 350,000,000 won as other income by deeming it to be in violation of the substance over form principle.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.