Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap52609 ( October 23, 2015)

Seocho 2014west 4460 ( November 3, 2014)

It is reasonable to see that income from consulting activities for real estate with continuity and repetition that can be seen as business activities is business income.

(The same as the judgment of the first instance court) The purpose of which is not only the profit but also the income from the consulting activities for real estate with continuity and repetition to the extent that it can be seen as business activities, it is reasonable to see that it is not other income but business income.

Article 19 of the Income Tax Act

2015Nu71244 global income and revocation of such disposition

○○

○ Head of tax office

National Rotations

on October 29, 2016

on October 1, 2016

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 Defendant’s revocation of the global income tax of KRW 000,000,000 on March 12, 2014 against the Plaintiff on March 12, 201.

The grounds for the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial while filing an appeal are almost the same as the Plaintiff’s assertion in the first instance trial, and even if all the evidence submitted in the first instance trial are examined, the judgment of the first instance that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable. As such, the reasons for the court’s explanation on this case are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the first instance, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.