2016Guhap25025 Global income and revocation of disposition

A

The director of Busan District Office

March 30, 2017

May 11, 2017

1. On August 1, 2016, the Defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of KRW 10,042,450, global income tax for the year 201, global income tax for the year 201, global income tax for the year 2012, global income tax for the year 2012, global income tax for the year 31,896,640, global income tax for the year 2013, global income tax for the year 2013, and global income tax for the year 2014.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a copyright holder of the novel "B", "C", and "D."

B. The Plaintiff’s act of infringing the Plaintiff’s copyright by downloading or downloading the said novel file without permission by using the web site or siren program, etc. to the investigation agency

A complaint was filed by the Defendant from June 20, 201 to December 31, 2014. The Defendant received a total of KRW 566,033,452 (hereinafter referred to as the “agreement”). On August 1, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision on August 1, 2016, regarding the instant agreement that was received from the Plaintiff from the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “agreement”) as “compensation under Article 21(1)17 of the Income Tax Act,” and thus, constituted other income, the amount of the agreement was deducted from necessary expenses, such as attorney’s fees, from the amount of the above agreement, and subsequently, the amount of global income tax of KRW 10,042,450 for the year 201, global income tax of KRW 30,824,910 for the year 2013, global income tax of KRW 31,896,640 for the year 2013, but was dismissed from the Plaintiff’s appeal.

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the agreement in this case was received property and mental compensation from the infringer who infringed the plaintiff's copyright, it does not constitute other income as a honorarium under Article 21 (1) 17 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the disposition in this case imposing a comprehensive income tax on the premise that the agreement in this case constitutes other income under Article 21 (1) of the Income Tax Act is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

Article 21(1)17 of the Income Tax Act provides honorariums as other income. Here, the term “compensations” refers to money and goods provided as a means of case in connection with administrative affairs or provision of services, etc., and whether it constitutes such money and goods ought to be determined by comprehensively considering the motive and purpose of receiving the relevant money and goods, relationship with the other party, amount, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu20304, Jan. 15, 1999).

In light of the following circumstances, each of the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence Nos. 4-9, Eul evidence Nos. 3-6 (including paper numbers), and the overall purport of the pleadings, the agreement amount of this case cannot be deemed to have been paid as compensation for the business of revoking the complaint, and even if the plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit against the defendant defendant who paid the agreement amount, it would have been paid property and mental damages caused by tort, such as copyright infringement, and it is difficult to regard the agreement amount as a honorarium under Article 21 (1) 17 of the Income Tax Act. Unless the agreement amount of this case does not constitute other income under Article 21 (1) of the Income Tax Act, unless it does not constitute other income under the current taxation system of the Income Tax Act, which lists the principle as to the scope of other income, taxation cannot be deemed to be income subject to taxation (this case's agreement amount cannot be imposed solely on the ground that the necessity of taxation is recognized, and it does not violate the principle of fair taxation on income not listed in the Income Tax Act).

1) On March 3, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a delegation agreement with attorney F with respect to the management of copyright infringement of the said novels. The terms of the delegation agreement are as follows: ① periodically search the copyright infringement of the said novels and secure evidence available in the relevant litigation by the mandatory; ② agreement is reached in the event of a request for agreement without any infringement of the infringer; ③ criminal complaints and civil damages are filed in the event of infringement of the infringing person’s infringement and there is no room for resolution by agreement.

2) The Plaintiff collected the case of infringement of copyright related to his own novels, filed a complaint with the investigation agency, and revoked the complaint upon receipt of an agreement of KRW 50,000 to KRW 2,000 upon the request of the Defendant. The written agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant stated that “The Defendant agreed not to file a civil or criminal objection any more against the Defendant as well as the Defendant’s criminal case between the parties on the condition that the Defendant would pay damages to the victim, on the condition that the Defendant would pay damages to the victim.”

3) The Defendant, who did not reach an agreement with the Plaintiff, was subject to a disposition of suspending indictment on the condition of education, or was indicted on suspicion of violation of the Copyright Act, and the summary order of a fine was finalized, or the charge was convicted through a request for a formal trial (the Defendant was convicted of not guilty in a case prosecuted for violation of the Copyright Act by putting the novels, etc. on the part of the Defendant using a siren program. Thus, the Defendant asserted to the purport that the Defendant’s use of the above program cannot be deemed as infringing the Plaintiff’s copyright solely on the ground that the Defendant’s use of the above program was insufficient. However, even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’s verdict of not guilty was pronounced on the ground that the proof of criminal facts was insufficient, and it did not

4) The Plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit (this Court Decision 2016Da306388, this Court Decision 2016Da308117, etc.) against the Defendant who did not reach an agreement to compensate for damages arising from a tort of copyright infringement against the Defendant, and the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress due to the Defendant’s copyright infringement on January 19, 2017, and the Defendants partly won the Plaintiff that “the Defendants would pay 300,000 won and delay damages to the Plaintiff, respectively, as solatium,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, senior judge and senior judge

Judges 00 Efficacy

Judge Choi Jin-hun