[1] The meaning of "rewards" under Article 21 (1) 17 of the Income Tax Act as one of other income and the standard for determining whether it falls under such "rewards"

[2] Whether a judgment on all the parties' arguments or methods of offence and defense should be indicated on the grounds of the written judgment (negative)

[3] The case holding that in a case where Gap corporation, which entered into a sales promotional agency contract with a liquor import and sales company, paid the amount of an organized amount agreed in accordance with the sales volume of alcoholic beverages to kiyman, who is an employee that may affect consumers' choice at an entertainment business, and deducted necessary expenses from the income tax and paid the income tax as other income under Article 21 (1) 19 of the Income Tax Act, and the tax authority denied necessary expenses by deeming it as an honorarium under Article 21 (1) 17 of the Income Tax Act and imposed other income tax on Gap corporation, the case holding that the amount of an organized amount has the nature of honorarium

[1] "Reward" under Article 21 (1) 17 of the Income Tax Act as one of other income means money and goods provided as a meaning of a case in connection with administrative affairs or provision of services, etc., and whether it constitutes such money and goods should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the motive and purpose of receiving money and goods, relationship with the other party, amount, etc.

[2] The reasoning of a written judgment is sufficient to indicate the judgment on the party’s allegations and other means of offence and defense to the extent that it can be recognized that the text is justifiable, and there is no need to determine all allegations by the parties or methods of offence and defense. Therefore, even if no specific and direct judgment on the party’s allegations is indicated in the court judgment, it cannot be deemed an omission if it is possible to find out that the overall argument of the reasons for the judgment was accepted or rejected. Even if the court did not make a decision, if it is obvious that the assertion would be rejected, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore

[3] In a case where Gap corporation which entered into a sales promotional agency contract with the liquor import and sales company denies necessary expenses and imposed other income tax on Gap corporation on the ground that the amount of professional appearance under pre-determined in accordance with the sales volume of alcoholic beverages is other income corresponding to the temporary service under Article 21 (1) 19 (d) of the Income Tax Act and deducted 80% of necessary expenses and withheld and paid income tax on the ground that the tax authority denied necessary expenses and imposed other income tax on Gap corporation, the case holding that the amount of professional appearance has the nature of honorarium for the purchase of alcoholic beverages by the liquor import and sales company at an entertainment business place, and thus, the disposition is lawful.

[1] Article 21 (1) 17 of the Income Tax Act / [2] Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 208 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 21 (1) 17 and 19 (d) of the Income Tax Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2010Du27288 Decided September 13, 2013 (Gong2013Ha, 1841), Supreme Court Decision 2013Du3818 Decided January 15, 2015 (Gong2015Sang, 257) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2006Da218 Decided July 10, 201 (Gong2008Ha, 1146), Supreme Court Decision 201Da87174 Decided April 26, 2012 (Gong2012Sang, 863)

MM planning Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Kim Jong-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Seocho Tax Office (Law Firm Quasi-Gyeong, Attorneys Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2016Nu39438 decided September 27, 2016

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 21(1)17 of the Income Tax Act refers to money and valuables provided as a means of a case in connection with administrative affairs or provision of services, etc., and whether it constitutes such money and valuables ought to be determined by comprehensively considering the motive and purpose of receiving the relevant money and valuables, relationship with the other party, amount, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du27288, Sept. 13, 2013, etc.).

In the reasoning of a written judgment, it would be sufficient to indicate the judgment on the party’s allegations and other means of offence and defense to the extent that it can be recognized that the text is justifiable, and there is no need to determine all allegations by the parties or methods of offence and defense (Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 208 of the Civil Procedure Act). Therefore, even if the specific and direct judgment on the matters alleged by the parties is not indicated in the judgment of the court, if it is possible to find out that the assertion was quoted or rejected in light of the overall purport of the reasoning of the judgment, it cannot be deemed an omission of judgment. Even if the court did not make a decision, if it is obvious that the assertion would be rejected even if it was not actually determined, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, there is no illegality of omission of judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da218, Jul. 10, 2008; 2011Da

On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the instant protocol payment was lawful on the premise that the instant protocol payment is an honorarium, on the grounds that it is reasonable to view that the instant protocol payment has the nature of honorarium for the purchase of alcoholic beverages by an importing and selling company of alcoholic beverages as indicated in the judgment at an entertainment business establishment.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, even if there are some inappropriate parts in the reasoning of the court below, the above conclusion of the court below is acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on honorariums, business income, the burden of proof of tax litigation, the justifiable grounds for exemption from additional tax, the principle of no taxation without law, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from this case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)