The disposition imposing income tax by deeming that the penalty for cancellation is appropriated as a new contract deposit.

In full view of the fact that it is difficult to deem that a penalty has been renounced without any condition, and that the seller has confirmed that the penalty has been appropriated for a new contract deposit, all or part of the penalty can be deemed to have been appropriated for the sale price, so other income tax disposition is legitimate.

Article 21 [Other Incomes] of the Income Tax Act

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff ordering cancellation shall be revoked.

2. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 159,129,320 for the Plaintiff on September 1, 2006, exceeding KRW 66,282,016, shall be revoked.

3. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

4. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be five minutes, which shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 159,129,320 on September 1, 2006 against the plaintiff on September 1, 2006.

1. Details of taxation; and

A. On November 2001, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the ○○○○○○○-dong 3, 000 won for the sales price for the above officetel 101-2002 (sub-story 38 square meters) (sub-story 38 square meters). On November 21, 2001, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the ○○○-dong 3,000,000 won for the above officetel 101-dong 2002 (sub-story 38 square meters). On November 21, 2001, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the ○○-dong 3,000 square meters (sub-story 7, hereinafter referred to as the “each of the instant documents”) that the Plaintiff would cancel the sales contract and pay twice the paid amount.

B. After that, around April 2004, the instant officetel 101 and 2002 had been constructed as a double-story and had started occupancy. However, around April 28, 2004, the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City ○○○○○ issued a corrective order ordering the Plaintiff, a prospective occupant, to restore the instant officetel 101 and 2002 to its original state on the ground that the construction of the instant officetel 101 and 2002 constitutes an extension without permission.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the high-rise Line concluded a sales contract on June 25, 2004, in lieu of the agreement on the above sales contract on June 25, 2004, that the above officetel 101 and 2002 were unable to execute the above officetel construction, and instead of the agreement on June 25, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff that newly purchased 51 square-type 102 Dong 3000,000 (hereinafter “the instant officetel”), and the total sales price shall be KRW 430,000,000, which was already paid by the Plaintiff as the sales price for the above officetel 101 Dong 202, the sales contract was prepared to substitute 350,000,000 as the down payment, and the remainder amount of KRW 80,000,00

D. On September 1, 2006, the Defendant stated 430,000,000 won in total on the sales contract prepared by the Plaintiff and the High ○○ Line with respect to the instant officetel, and the actual sales price is 430,000,000 won in total, which shall be paid to the Plaintiff according to the instant contract, shall be 780,000,000 won in total, for the reason that the penalty of 350,000,000 won in total shall be deemed as other income under Article 21 of the Income Tax Act, and determined that the said penalty of 350,000,000 won in total shall be deemed as 159,129,320 won in total for the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant taxation”).

E. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant taxation disposition, but was dismissed, and the petition for trial filed on February 12, 2007 was dismissed on April 20, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the taxation disposition is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) On June 25, 2004, when entering into a new sales contract with a high-level company on the instant officetel, the Defendant’s taxation disposition of this case on the premise that the instant officetel’s actual sales price is KRW 780,000,000, which was to be paid from the high-level company pursuant to each of the instant agreements was unlawful, merely renounced KRW 350,000,000, which was not appropriated as part of the sales price for the instant officetel.

(2) Even if the Plaintiff’s economic profit from the acquisition of the instant officetel exists, it is of the nature that it should naturally be reverted to the Plaintiff as a price increase portion from November 2001 to June 2004 of the 38th officetel on the 38th office floor, which the Plaintiff could have acquired, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff acquired penalty. Accordingly, the instant taxation disposition, which did not consider such substance, is in violation of the principle of substantial taxation.

(b) Related statutes;

Omission

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Seoul ○○○○○-dong 3 had a total of 421 households for ○○-dong 3 ○○-dong 4,00 5 households for ○○-73 ○○○○-dong 3. Of them, a sales contract was concluded with the 38th floor of 101 Dong 2002 (Plaintiff), 102 Dong 2002 (No. 2002), 102 Dong 203 (No. 2003), 103 Dong 102 Dong 202 (Ga-dong 102). The sales contract was concluded with the remainder of 300,000 dong 202, and the sales contract was concluded with the Plaintiff for 330,500,000 dong 202, respectively.

(2) All of the above four households were built on a 38th floor, but the head of the ○○○○○○, around April 28, 2004, ordered the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff, to restore to the original state on the ground that the construction of a dunes to the above four households constitutes an unauthorized extension.

(3) As a result, the Plaintiff determined that the construction of a double-story for the above officetel 101 2002 was impossible, and demanded a high-rise vessel to cancel the sales contract and return twice the sales price already paid. A high-board vessel prepared and issued a written confirmation that the Plaintiff would pay the Plaintiff a penalty of KRW 300,000,000, which is the sales price paid by the Plaintiff up to the time, to the Plaintiff around June 10, 2004.

(4) In lieu of the agreement on the termination of the above sales contract, the Plaintiff and ○○ Line agreed to newly purchase the instant officetel 51 square meters. Accordingly, on June 25, 2004, 430,000 won for the total sales price of the instant officetel 350,000,000 won for the instant officetel 101 and 2002 already paid by the Plaintiff [the Plaintiff ○○ Line prepared the confirmation document under the above paragraph (3) and paid the remainder from June 10, 2004 to June 25, 2004, 80,000,000 won for the sales contract was additionally paid to the Plaintiff at the time of occupancy, and the Plaintiff prepared the first written confirmation of the sales contract and the first written confirmation to the Plaintiff ○○ Line 10,000,000 won for the sales contract and did not file any criminal charges against the Plaintiff.

(5) On the other hand, as the Plaintiff, Kim ○-ju, Lee ○-hee, and Lee ○-hee, who concluded a sales contract for the 38th class type of multi-story as well as the Plaintiff, agreed on the existing sales contract, and newly purchased a new 51 class type which had existed in an unsold housing unit until the time. The specific contents

(A) On April 16, 2004, 103 Dong-dong 3002 (51 square meters) drafted a contract for sale in lots with 794,375,000 total sales price. In this regard, Kim ○ received a request for confirmation of facts from an employee of the Seoul Regional Tax Office on August 23, 2005, and the said employee received 103 Dong 3002 under the condition that he did not receive penalty on April 16, 2004, 103 Dong 794,375,000 won, 350,000,000 won in addition to the existing amount of 350,000,000 won in addition to the amount of 1,450,000,000 won in total and 300,000 won in total, and the remaining amount of penalty shall be offset by facsimile and sent again to the purport that it should be offset by facsimile.

(B) On May 3, 2004, ○○○○○ prepared a contract for the sale in lots for the total amount of KRW 768,750,000 for high ○○○○ and KRW 3002 (e.g. 51). In this regard, upon receiving a confirmation request from an employee of the Seoul Regional Tax Office on August 22, 2005, the said employee was sold to KRW 768,750,000 for 350,000 for the existing amount of KRW 80,000 for the additional amount of KRW 350,000 for 350,000 for 10,000 for 10,000 for 10,000 for 10,000 for 10,000 for 10,000 for mar and 300,000 for marbb).

(C) On May 3, 2004, ○○○○ and 101 3002 (e.g., 51) drafted a contract for sale in lots for the total amount of KRW 350,00,000 for 100 and 101 302 (e.g., 51). In this regard, on September 21, 2005, ○○○ signed a contract for sale in lots for 510,000,000 for the existing deposit amount of KRW 255,00,000 for 10,000 for the total amount of KRW 95,00,000 for additional deposit and KRW 301,000 for 10,300,000 for sale in lots with ○○○.

(D) In addition, in the above explanatory statement, the high ○○○○, and the above explanatory statement stated to the effect that “350,000,000 won for penalty to be paid to the Plaintiff, Kim ○○, and Lee ○○○○, and penalty of 255,00,000 won for penalty to be paid to Lee ○○, as part of the sale price for the 51 square type that the Plaintiff, Kim ○, Lee ○, and Lee ○, were appropriated for the sale price for the purchase of the goods, the above amount equivalent to the penalty should be included in the necessary expenses

(6) 51 square meters of ○○○○○○○ Officetel is five households. All of them remain unsold until April 2004. Among them, four households were sold to the Plaintiff, Kim○-ju, Lee○-hee, and Lee Il-hee as above on April 2004, and the remainder of one household (104 Dong 3002) was sold to ○○ on April 21, 2004.

In a contract for sale in lots drawn up with ○○○○○○○○, the total sale price of KRW 768,750,000 is indicated as KRW 768,750,00, and the intermediate payment of KRW 150,000 shall be paid on April 21, 2004, which is the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 618,750,000 shall be deposited into the bank account of ○○○○○ Construction, which is the time of occupancy at the time of occupancy at the time of occupancy at ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, but the remainder of KRW 150,00 on April 22, 200, KRW 150,000 in cash, KRW 250,000 on May 10, 200, KRW 200 on account transfer, and KRW 7.4,7,700 on account transfer transfer account transfer; and

(7) On November 2001, 2001, at the time of the first sale of ○○○○○○○○○ Omert Officetel, the sale price of general 38 square meters was from 208,000 to 244,00,000 according to the floor and structure, but the Plaintiff, etc., who entered into a sales contract, planned to sell the double-story 4 households of 38 square meters and 51 square meters at 51 square meters as “original-type housing.” However, the sale price was not set since both the Plaintiff, etc., planned to sell the double-story 38 square meters and 51 square meters at 51 square meters.

(8) As seen above, a high-level 4 households of 38 square meters on which the sales contract was concluded were sub-construction again, and then sold in lots. The sales price was 450,000,000 won in total.

(9) According to the result of appraiser Kim Chang-soo’s appraisal of the market price of the instant officetel at the first instance court’s commission, the market price of the instant officetel at the time of June 25, 2004 is 586,50,000 won.

(10) According to the national apartment market list published by the Korea Appraisal Board, the market price around July 2004 was KRW 495,000,000-540,000,000, which was around 50 square meters in Seoul, where the instant officetel is located.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5, 7, 11, 13, 22, 23, Gap evidence Nos. 6-1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 8-1 through 5, Gap evidence Nos. 18-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the result of the market price appraisal entrustment to the appraiser Kim Chang-ho by the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Whether the penalty has been appropriated as part of the sale price

(A) According to the above facts, (1) as of April 28, 2004, as of June 10, 2004, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to newly conclude a sales contract for the instant officetel on June 25, 2004 with a written confirmation that the Plaintiff would pay a penalty of KRW 300,000,000, which is the sale price paid by the Plaintiff at that time; and (3) as of June 15, 2004, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to conclude a sales contract for the instant officetel on June 25, 2004 with the Plaintiff to newly conclude a sales contract for the instant officetel; and (4) as of June 10, 204, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to view that part of the sales contract for the instant officetel was appropriated for KRW 50,00,000 as part of the remainder of the sale price for the existing officetel on June 15, 200, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to have given up the penalty of KRW 3080,500.

(B) Furthermore, it is difficult to view that the sales contract of this case was 00,000 won for the sales contract of this case and 40,000 won for the sales contract of this case which is 60,000 won or more, and that the sales contract of this case was 79,375,000 won or 768,00 won for the sales contract of this case which is 60,000 won or more for the sales contract of this case. However, it is difficult to view that the actual sales price of this case was 780,000 won or more for the sales contract of this case and 350,000 won for the sales contract of this case which is 0,000 won or more for the sales contract of this case. However, it is difficult to view that the sale price of this case was 00,000 won or more for the sales contract of this case which is 60,000 won or more for the sales contract of this case.

(C) Therefore, the amount of penalty appropriated as part of the sale price shall be 156,50,000 won, which is the difference between 586,50,000 won and 430,000,000 won actually paid by the Plaintiff, rather than 350,000 won.

(2) Whether the substance over form principle is violated

As alleged by the Plaintiff, even if the economic benefits accrued to the Plaintiff from the acquisition of the instant officetel have part of the substance of price increase from November 2001 to June 2004 of the 38th squaretel on the 38th floor in which the Plaintiff entered into the initial sales contract, as long as the initial sales contract has not been maintained and the agreement has not been reached, such benefits shall not naturally belong to the Plaintiff, but may be attributed to the form of penalty following the termination of the agreement, and thus, imposing the benefits on the Plaintiff as other income under Article 21 of the Income Tax Act cannot be deemed to violate the principle of substantial taxation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion contrary thereto is unacceptable.

(3) Sub-determination

If the Plaintiff calculates a reasonable amount of tax by 156,50,000 won with the penalty amount received by appropriating the amount of the instant officetel as part of the sale price for the instant officetel as KRW 66,282,016, as stated in the attached Table 1’s tax calculation sheet, the portion exceeding the above amount of the instant taxation is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part exceeding KRW 66,282,016 among the taxation disposition of this case shall be revoked. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition and the remaining claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, part of the plaintiff's appeal shall be accepted and part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which constitutes the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be revoked, and the part which exceeds KRW 66,282,016 among the taxation of this case shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's remaining appeal shall

[Seoul Administrative Court 2007Guhap26186, Nov. 16, 2007]

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 159,129,320 for the Plaintiff on September 1, 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 23, 2001, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the representative OO of the O sub-agent, who is a seller of buildings in units, for 54-73 Otel 1001 Dong 2002 (total sales price of 3.5 million won). On November 21, 2001, GoO entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff on November 21, 2001 that the above officetel 101 Dong 2002 No. 202, the Plaintiff would terminate the sales contract and pay twice paid by the Plaintiff.

B. Since construction on the 38th floor level promised by GoO was in violation of the Building Act, it was impossible to carry out the construction. On June 25, 2004, the Plaintiff and GoOO entered into a sales contract for the above officetel 101 Dong 2002 (51 square meters, hereinafter referred to as the “the instant officetel”). The sales contract for the above 102 Dong 3002 (51 square meters, hereinafter referred to as the “the instant officetel”) was concluded. The sales price for the prepaid grain paid until the time of the impossibility of construction of the sub-story was KRW 30 million, but the Plaintiff paid the prepaid KRW 50 million in addition, the total amount paid by the Plaintiff as the sales price for the above 101 Dong 2002 is KRW 350,000.

C. On September 1, 206, the Defendant deemed that, according to the taxation data notified by the Director of the Regional Tax Office of OO, the penalty of KRW 350,000,000 as stated in the above Paragraph (1) was appropriated for the sales price of the instant officetel, the Plaintiff corrected and notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax of KRW 159,129,320 for the year 2004 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition, but was dismissed, and the Plaintiff’s appeal filed on February 12, 2007 also dismissed on April 20, 2007.

Descriptions of Gap 1, 2, 5, and 7, each of the facts with no grounds for recognition;

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) After considering that the actual sales price of the instant officetel was KRW 7.8 million, the Defendant actually paid by the Plaintiff, but the remaining KRW 3.5 million was deemed to have been appropriated for the penalty of KRW 3.5 million to be paid by the Plaintiff from the GoO. However, although the actual sales price of the instant officetel was not appropriated for the sales price of the instant officetel as KRW 4.3 million, the amount of penalty of KRW 3.5 million was not appropriated for the sales price of the instant officetel, and the Plaintiff only renounced penalty of KRW 3.5 million.5 million.

Therefore, the instant disposition, based on the premise that the Plaintiff was paid a penalty of KRW 350 million, is unlawful.

(2) Even if the Plaintiff’s economic profit from the acquisition of the instant officetel exists, it is the increase in the price from November 2001 to June 2004 of the 38th officetel of the 38th officetel of the same floor that the Plaintiff could have acquired, which, as a matter of course, should be attributed to the Plaintiff, not be deemed to have acquired penalty. Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have acquired penalty on the ground that only the planned explanation for the event of sale to increase the cost is established on the basis of the price at the time of June 2004 of the instant officetel, and then, the instant disposition that deemed that the Plaintiff appropriated a penalty of KRW 3.5 million to the sale price of the instant officetel is also in violation of the principle of substantial taxation.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) OO OO구 OO동3가 54-73 OO 오피스텔은 총 5개동 421세대이고, 그 중 원고와 같이 복층 38평으로 분양된 세대는 4세대{원고(101동 2002호), 이OO(102동 2002호), 이ΔΔ(102동 2003호), 김OO(103동 2002호)}였으며, 이OO는 3억 원에, 원고를 비롯한 나머지 3인은 각 3억 5천만 원에 분양받았다.

(2) 고OO은 위 4세대를 복층 38평으로 공사하였으나, OO특별시 OO구청장은 2004. 4. 28.경 원고를 비롯한 이OO, 이ΔΔ, 김OO에게 건축법 제9조(건축신고)를 위반하여 무단 증축(복층)하였으므로 자진철거하여 원상복구하라는 통지를 하였다.

(3) On June 25, 2004, the Plaintiff and GoOOO entered into a sales contract for the instant officetel on which it was impossible for the Plaintiff to execute the multi-story construction of Nos. 101 and 2002, which the Plaintiff would purchase as a corrective order for an unlawful building, such as the head of OO Special Metropolitan City OOOO, as described in paragraph (2) above, and the total supply value under the contract is KRW 430,000.3 billion.

(4) On the day of the preparation of the sales contract as described in the above Paragraph (3), the Plaintiff cancelled the first sales contract between the Plaintiff and GoOO on November 28, 2001 (No. 101. 2002) without penalty and any terms and conditions, and did not file a civil or criminal objection, and 3.50 million won already paid are to substitute the sales contract as the down payment for the instant officetel, and thereafter, the Plaintiff paid KRW 80 million on August 30, 2004 as the sales fund for the instant officetel.

(5) 원고와 같이 복층 38평을 분양받기로 한 김OO, 이ΔΔ, 이OO 또한 기존의 분양계약을 합의해지 하였고, 원고와 마찬가지로 51평형을 분양받기로 하였다.

(6) On April 16, 2004, KimO and GoO entered into a sales contract with OO-dong 3, 54-73 Otel 1002 (51 square) at 54-73 Otel, and the total amount of the public funds under the contract is stated as KRW 794,375,000.

(7) 이ΔΔ과 고OO은 2004. 5. 3. OO OO구 OO동3가 54-73 OO 오피스텔 105동 3002호(51평)에 대한 분양계약을 체결하였는데 그 계약서상 총 공급가액은 768,750,000원으로 기재되어 있다.

(8) On May 3, 2004, EOOOO-dong 3 entered into a sales contract for 54-73 Otel 1001 302 (51 square). The total value of supply under the contract is KRW 350 million.

(9) 김◎◎(이ΔΔ의 남편)는 2005. 8. 22. OO지방국세청 소속 직원이 작성한 확인서에 이름과 주민등록번호를 기재하여 팩스로 보내주었는데, 그 확인서에 의하면, 2004. 5. 3. 위 105동 3002호를 768,750,000원에 분양받았고, 4억 3천만 원(기존의 불입액 3억 5천만 원 + 추가 불입액 8천만 원)을 실제로 불입하였으며, 나머지는 위약금과 상계하였다고 되어 있다.

(10) On August 23, 2005, KimO sent a letter of confirmation prepared by an employee of the regional tax office with his name and resident registration number written by facsimile. According to the letter of confirmation, on April 16, 2004, on condition that he did not receive penalty on April 16, 2004, the above 103 Dong 3002 (e.g. 51 square) was sold to 794,375,000 won, and approximately 450,000 (e.g., an additional amount of KRW 350,000,000) was actually paid, and the remainder was set off against penalty.

(11) 고OO은 2005. 9. 21. 원고와 김OO, 이ΔΔ에게 지급하여야 할 위약금 3억 5천만 원과 이OO에게 지급하여야 할 위약금 2억 5천 5백만 원은 원고와 김OO, 이ΔΔ, 이OO가 분양받기로 한 위 각 51평에 대한 분양대금의 일부로 충당되었으므로 소득세를 과세할 때 위 위약금 상당액이 필요경비로 산입되어야 한다는 내용의 소명서를 OO지방국세청에 제출하였다.

(12) The OOO was sold out of OO in lots 54-73 OOtel 104 3002 (51 square meters). The total supply value on the sales contract was KRW 768,750,000 (OO appears to have been sold in lots as a construction business operator under the pretext of a default on payment for the claim for construction payment from OO).

(13) 고OO은 원고와 김OO, 이ΔΔ, 이OO에게 복층 38평형으로 분양하고자 하였던 위 4세대를 단층으로 다시 공사한 후 일반 분양하였는데 그 분양가액은 모두 4억 5천만 원이었다.

(14) According to the market price appraisal result of appraiser Kim-chul's similarity, the market price of the instant officetel at the time of June 25, 2004 is 586,50,000 won.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap 3 through 5, Gap 7, 11, Eul 2 and 3, and the result of the appraisal of the market price of the appraiser Kim-dong, the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

(1) Whether to accept penalty

위 인정사실에게 본 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 원고와 같이 복층 38평형을 분양받기로 하였다가 51평형을 분양받기로 한 김OO, 이ΔΔ은 그 총 공급가액을 각 794,375,000원, 768,750,000원으로 한 점, ②고OO은 이 사건 오피스텔의 총 공급가액이 7억 8천만 원이며, 그 중 3억 5천만 원이며, 그 중 3억 5천만 원은 위약금으로 충당되었다고 하고 있는 점, ③ OO지방국세청 소속 직원이 김OO, 김◎◎(이ΔΔ의 남편)로부터 받은 각 확인서에 의하면, 김OO는 794,375,000원, 이ΔΔ은 768,750,000원에 분양받았고, 김OO와 이ΔΔ이 실제로 납입한 대금과 위 각 분양금액과의 차액은 위약금과 상계하기로 하였다고 하는 점, ④ 원고가 이 사건 오피스텔을 분양받을 당시 38평형의 일반분양가액은 4억 5천만 원 상당이었는데 그보다 평수가 훨씬 큰 51평형의 분양가액이 4억 3천만 원이었다고 보기는 어려운 점, ⑤ 원고는 여러 가지 사정을 들어 위약금 3억 5천만 원을 포기할 수밖에 없었다고 하나 원고가 들고 있는 여러 가지 사정을 감안하더라도 3억 5천만 원이나 되는 위약금을 아무런 조건 없이 포기할 수밖에 없었다고 하나 원고가 들고 있는 여러 가지 사정을 감안하더라도 3억 5천만 원이나 되는 위약금을 아무런 조건 없이 포기하였다고 보기 어려운 점 등에 이 사건 변론과정에 나타난 제반 사정을 종합하여 보면, 원고는 위약금 3억 5천만 원을 이 사건 오피스텔에 대한 분양대금의 지금에 충당하는 형식으로 지급받은 것으로 봄이 상당하다.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's argument.

(2) Whether the substance over form principle is violated

The key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff received penalty of KRW 3.5 million from the GoOO, and as seen above, the Plaintiff received penalty of KRW 3.5 million, and this constitutes other income provided for in Article 21(1)10 of the Income Tax Act. Moreover, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s profit derived from the instant officetels was the sales premium of KRW 38,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.