Whether it is impossible to regard it as a business income due to a strong demand for lectures from time to time.

It is reasonable to view that the lectures performed by the Plaintiff were conducted as part of the continuous and repeated business activities aimed at profit by social norms, not contingent or temporary activities, and as part of other business activities.

Article 19 (Business Income of Gu Income Tax)

Article 21 (Other Incomes)

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 global income tax of 18,708,470 won for the year 2002 against the Plaintiff on March 1, 2008, global income tax of 17,851,210 won for the year 2003, global income tax of 15,224,090 won for the year 2004, global income tax of 5,704,480 for the year 2006 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff received lecture fees from various companies during the period from 2002 to 2006 after receiving lectures from various companies, and received the lecture fees. In filing a comprehensive income tax return for the year 2002, 2003, and 2006, the Plaintiff returned each salary received from the Preferred University as earned income, and filed a return of lecture fees and part of the earnings received from the above companies as other income in the corresponding year of each corresponding year (However, in 2002, the Plaintiff reported 80,456,830 of the lecture fuel income as other income, and the remaining 43,308,340 of the lecture fuel income as other income, respectively). On January 23, 2008, the Defendant sent a notice to the Plaintiff to correct the type of income as other income as the income tax for each corresponding year.

B. After that, the Defendant, on March 1, 2008, deemed that the Plaintiff did not comply with the foregoing notification of the global income tax return and that the Plaintiff was a business income, not other than other income, and determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 18,708,470 of the global income tax for the year 2002, KRW 17,851,210 of the global income tax for the year 2003, and KRW 15,224,090 of the global income tax for the year 204, KRW 5,704,480 of the global income tax for the year 2006 (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 7-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, while serving as a professor at the Sweak University, was in the form of a social organization called "International Peace Research Institute" and was engaged in social activities. In this regard, the Plaintiff received a demand for lectures from various enterprises and received the payment for lectures in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006. However, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, based on the premise that the Plaintiff’s annual fuel income falls under business income in each of the pertinent years, is unlawful, as long as he/she received a demand for lectures from the above organizations without basis in employment relationships or any other forms of contractual relationship. However, the Plaintiff provided the services of 'the lecture' whenever he/she received a demand for lectures from the above organizations without being based on the employment relationship or any other form of contractual relationship, and received the payment for the said services. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s annual fuel income acquired in 202, 203, 2004, and 206 should be deemed to fall under a typical income, not business income.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 29 (Scope of Business)

Article 19 (Business Income of Gu Income Tax)

Article 21 (Other Incomes)

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The following are analyzed according to the details of the Plaintiff’s receipt of the mandatory fuel during the period from 2002 to 2006, based on the details of withholding from the companies that paid the said compulsory fuel.

(2) On the other hand, the details of the Plaintiff’s return on the total income tax for the period from 2002 to 2006 as the revenue amount acquired during the above period are as follows.

(3) Since 1993, the Plaintiff obtained lecture fees from the employees of various companies, and acquired the lecture fees accordingly. The lecture fees from 1993 to 2001 have been reported as business income.

(4) In 2005, among the companies that the Plaintiff conducted lectures, (a) ○○ Tech, Korea Industrial Development Training Institute, etc. was not in an employment relationship with the Plaintiff as an industrial educational institution that provided education to its employees pursuant to a contract concluded with the companies, but did not separately engage in an employment relationship with the Plaintiff. However, upon receiving a request for planning educational programs from the customer companies, the Plaintiff entrusted the Plaintiff with lectures whenever necessary. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was demoted from the above companies, mainly on the issues such as conflict of interest and change innovation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3-1 to 3, Gap evidence 6-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1 to 7-2, the purport of whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Article 19(1)15 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter “the Act”) lists income generated from social and private service business as one type of business income. Article 21(1) of the Act provides, “other income means income other than interest income, dividend income, real estate rental income, labor income, temporary property income, pension income, transfer income, and forestry income under the following subparagraphs.” Article 19 of the same Act provides, “The following personal services are provided temporarily to a large number of people without employment relations and receives a price for lecture fuel, etc.” The above provision provides, “other income listed in each subparagraph of Article 21(1) of the Act shall be deemed as miscellaneous income only in the case of other income falling under the main sentence of the above Article 21(1) and shall be deemed as miscellaneous income in the process of performing the business, and it shall be deemed that it is clear that it falls under the name of the above Article 21(1)1 of the Act, even if it is the title or 9 of the Act:

(2) Meanwhile, the determination of whether the Plaintiff’s act of providing services constitutes business income or other income with a temporary nature, such as the Plaintiff’s independent qualification, shall be based on ordinary social norms, not on the form, name, and appearance of the transaction entered into between the parties, but on the substance thereof. The determination of whether the Plaintiff’s act of providing services for 200du5203,00,000,000 won and 2050,000,000 won and 206,000,000 won and 50,000 won and 60,000,000 won and 50,000,000 won and 60,000,00 won and 6,000,000 won and 6,00,000 won and 6,00,000 won and 65,00,000 won and 6,00,000 won, respectively.

3. Conclusion

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