Suwon District Court 2010Guhap15125 ( October 13, 2011)

early 2010 Heavy2151 (Law No. 1031, 2010)

The amount received under the name of "compensation" in return for an illegal solicitation shall be other income.

As long as the amount received in return for an illegal solicitation is other income, and income has not been returned to the original owner and has been consumed, the disposition imposed on it is legitimate.

2011Nu5973 global income and revocation of disposition

XX

O Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap15125 Decided January 13, 2011

June 29, 2011

September 7, 2011

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 185,364,740 against the Plaintiff on June 1, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why this Court is to be used in this case are as follows, the first instance court's reasoning and the second instance court's reasoning, except for the following cases: Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2) Determination as to the assertion of change in the grounds for disposition

The criminal facts of the judgment of breach of trust against the plaintiff are stated as follows: "the plaintiff received KRW 300 million from the regular AA to raise the construction cost (Evidence 1). The grounds for correction of the decision of this case concerning the disposition of this case include "the portion of the final and conclusive judgment materials (300 million won) belonging to the year 2003" (Evidence 2), and "the purpose of notification is to aggregate wage, business income, and real estate rental income" (Evidence 2). The grounds for calculating the tax amount of tax payment notice is stated as follows: "the notice of tax payment is a global income tax belonging to the year 2003, and is given the other tax amount (Evidence 3)."

The Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant money falls under the category of other income listed in Article 21(1) of the former Income Tax Act and rendered the instant disposition by deeming that the said money falls under the category of “compensation (No. 17)”; (b) the reference of “brare” or “money and valuables received by breach of trust acceptance” is merely a concrete explanation of the grounds for disposition, which is “compensation.” Even if not, the Defendant did not change the grounds for disposition. Even if the Plaintiff did not do so, the basic fact that the Plaintiff received the instant money in relation to the increase of construction cost is identical to the other income under Article 21(1) of the former Income Tax Act, and thus,

2. Conclusion

The appeal is dismissed.