National Tax Service Review Income 2010-0091 ( December 13, 2010)

A disposition imposing global income tax on the honorarium received in return for cooperation in the progress of a reconstruction project is legitimate.

The disposition imposing global income tax is legitimate on the Plaintiff by deeming that the Plaintiff’s transfer of real estate to the reconstruction association as a “compensation for cooperation in the progress of the reconstruction project” does not appear to have been given by the executor after the Plaintiff paid money to the Plaintiff.

2011Guhap1546 Global Income and Revocation of Disposition

OO

The Director of Incheon Tax Office

July 19, 2012

August 23, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 000 on September 1, 2010 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 201 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 29, 1981, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of a building with an OO-dong 000 large scale of 166 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), but on September 12, 2007, transferred it to the non-party OO apartment reconstruction association (hereinafter “ reconstruction association”) and received KRW 000 (hereinafter “the instant money”) from DD public corporation (hereinafter “D public corporation”) and 000 (hereinafter “the instant money”).

B. On September 1, 2010, the Defendant considered the instant money as corresponding to other income (e.g., honorarium) under Article 21(1)17 of the Income Tax Act, and rendered the instant disposition imposing the comprehensive income tax stated in the purport of the claim on the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on September 27, 2010, but the request for examination was dismissed on December 13, 2010.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant money is not a honorarium but a part of the purchase price of the instant real estate paid under an agreement between the Plaintiff and the reconstruction association. The instant disposition reported differently is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Paper in the Appendix

C. Determination

(1) In addition to the whole purport of the pleading, the following facts may be found in the above evidence, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 5, and Eul evidence 6 (including household numbers):

① On April 6, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the reconstruction resolution with the reconstruction association as the Defendant, Incheon District Court 2005Gahap4716

② On August 31, 2007, the appellate court of the instant case, deposited KRW 000 in the future of the Plaintiff on August 31, 2007, while the reconstruction association continues to file a lawsuit in the Seoul High Court 2007

③ D Public Service shall be paid KRW 000 under the name of “director expenses” to the Plaintiff on September 11, 2007 (However, the amount actually paid is KRW 000,000 calculated by subtracting the withholding tax from other income).

④ On September 12, 2007, the Plaintiff, and the reconstruction association, on September 12, 2007, have completed ownership transfer registration (the actual transaction price stated in the real estate transaction contract completion certificate shall be KRW 000, and the entrusted amount shall be the same), and the withdrawal on September 13, 2007, and receipt of deposit money on September 19, 2007.

(5) As the executor of a reconstruction project has delayed project progress due to disputes between the plaintiff, etc. and the reconstruction association, Dpublic would promptly terminate the disputes arising from difficulties, such as general management costs and financial costs, and thereby normalize the progress of the project to the plaintiff.

⑥ DD공영은 원고 외에 재건축조합과 분쟁이 있었던 양QQ， 박RR， 최SS에 게도 위와 같은 취지의 돈을 지급

(2) In addition to the circumstances that the above facts were recognized, and DD public were not the parties to the instant real estate sales contract, and that D public used the instant real estate claimed to the reconstruction association after the payment of the instant money, it is reasonable to view the instant money as falling under “an honorarium for the progress of the reconstruction project” under Article 21(1)17 of the Income Tax Act, and “an honorarium for the progress of the reconstruction project by transferring the instant real estate to the reconstruction association as soon as possible,” and the Plaintiff’s assertion is lawful on such premise.

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.