Cho High Court Decision 201Do3571 ( December 09, 2011)

It is reasonable to view that only 50% of the case fee has been paid to the Plaintiff under the circumstances of transaction.

Since 50% of the amount received from the time of the instant land brokerage was agreed to the Plaintiff, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff received 50% only 50% of the amount in light of various transaction circumstances, such as the Plaintiff’s consistent statement by the honorarium payer to the effect that 50% was delivered to the Plaintiff.

2012Guhap8533 global income and revocation of disposition

XX

Head of Geumcheon Tax Office

December 7, 2012

January 4, 2013

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing global income tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff on May 13, 201, 2005, which exceeds KRW 000 (including additional tax) of global income tax in 2005, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) in 2005 against the Plaintiff on May 13, 201, which exceeds KRW 000 (including additional tax) of global income tax in 2005, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 30, 2005, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, an urban environment company (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company") transferred the right to purchase the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right

B. The Director of the Central Tax Office of China has on-site investigation, and confirmed that KRW 000 of the cost of civil engineering works out of the reported necessary expenses was paid to PB, and notified the head of the Gu tax office having jurisdiction over PB’s domicile to taxation data. The former Director of the Gu Tax Office made ex officio business registration for PB and imposed and notified KRW 000 of the value-added tax (including additional tax) for 2005.

C. JeongB filed an objection against the imposition of value-added tax, and the former director of the Guro Tax Office paid 00 won for cases related to the sale and purchase of the instant land as well as for supervision of civil works. The Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff received KRW 00, KRW 00, KRW 000, KRW 400, KRW 000, and KRW 00, and KRW 00,000, respectively, respectively, for the reason that the Plaintiff received the distribution of KRW 00,000, and KRW 00,000, respectively, and notified the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the domicile of each income earner.

D. Accordingly, on May 13, 201, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of global income tax of 000 won (including additional tax) in 2005 on the ground that “the Plaintiff received 000 won at the case cost for the sale of the instant land,” and “the intermediary fee for the right to property under Article 21(1)16 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144, Dec. 30, 2006) is other income.”

E. The Plaintiff filed an objection on May 30, 201, and received a decision of dismissal from the Defendant on June 28, 201. The Plaintiff filed an appeal on September 30, 201, and received a decision of dismissal from the Tax Tribunal on December 9, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since 00 won was allocated at the case cost for the sale of the instant land, the part exceeding 000 won out of the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

As shown in the attached Table related Acts and subordinate statutes

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The details of the sales contract introduction

(A) Around 2005, the Plaintiff was requested by the non-party company to arrange the factory site, through the branch, and the Plaintiff was introduced by the third-party company through the third-CC, the third-CC, and the third-party KimA through the due B.

(B) On September 30, 2005, KimA transferred the instant land to the non-party company, and paid 000 won to Jung-B at the case cost and the supervision cost of civil and civil construction works.

(C) Meanwhile, at the time of the Plaintiff’s employment of Y (hereinafter “YY”) as an employee of Y (hereinafter “YY”), the Plaintiff was also involved in the instant land transaction along with the Plaintiff.

(2) Account transactions and check tracking results

(A) On October 5, 2005, from a new bank account under the name of MaB to a new bank account under the name of DaCC, KRW 000 was transferred, and on the same day, from a new bank account under the name of DaCC, KRW 000 was withdrawn as a check.

(B) According to the Check Council, KRW 00,000 out of the said Check was revealed to have presented each payment proposal by the NonF, the Plaintiff’s spouse, and KRW 000,000, the Non-Party’s will, the Plaintiff’s mother, and Kim H, the spouse of KimE.

(3) Certifications, etc. of dueB and HighCC

(A) AB;

1. AB, upon filing an objection to the imposition of value-added tax, has prepared and submitted the following confirmations:

2. The Court testified in the following manner:

(B) HighCC

① On December 24, 2009, the HighCC prepared and submitted a written confirmation to the Defendant that “The Party B had delivered KRW 000 to the Plaintiff on October 5, 2005.”

② HighCC testified in this Court as follows:

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 2 and 3, witness satisfyB, witness satisfyB, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) The case holding that although 50% of the amount received from the time of the tax investigation to this court was consistently stated to the effect that “A 50% of the amount received from the time of the instant land brokerage to the Plaintiff was delivered to the Plaintiff”, the Plaintiff testified that “A 500% of the 00 won received from KimA was delivered to the Plaintiff,” it was not consistent with the time of delivery by the court, place, method, etc. (BB 1B 00 won was delivered to the real estate agent office located at the time of conclusion of the contract, and 00 won was delivered to the Plaintiff on October 5, 2010, and it was difficult to view that the Plaintiff testified that “A 00 won was delivered to the Plaintiff by means of delivery of the check at the time of conclusion of the contract, and 00 won was delivered to the Plaintiff’s office located at the time of conclusion of the contract, and the Plaintiff did not appear to have been given testimony during the period of delivery of the check to the Plaintiff’s 000 won.”

(2) However, according to the Check, 000 won was revealed to have been presented by Kim H, Kim H is the spouse of KimE, and KimE was involved in the sale of the instant land together with the Plaintiff, and thus, 000 won was distributed to the Plaintiff (the testimony of the HighCC) and KimE at the case cost.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff received 000 won ( =00 won-00 won) at the case cost, and thus, the legitimate tax amount for this is KRW 000, such as the attached tax calculation table.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the part exceeding KRW 00 (including additional tax) of the disposition of this case is unlawful, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.