종합소득세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From January 31, 2012 to October 14, 2012, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted an integrated investigation of personal taxes against the Plaintiff from 2008 to October 14, 2012; (b) deemed that the Plaintiff omitted interest income of KRW 7,363,39,99,99 ( KRW 3,243,00,000,000, KRW 3,459,999, KRW 660,000,000, and KRW 660,000,000,000; and (c) accordingly, the Defendant notified the Defendant of taxation data on November 12, 2012, each of which reverts to the Plaintiff for the year 2008, KRW 1,475,068,320, KRW 1,68,50,000 for the year 209, KRW 305,205.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)
The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 8, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 19, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence 1-5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that KRW 5 billion out of KRW 6 billion loaned to B on March 11, 2008, and KRW 500 million loaned to B on January 10, 2008, as well as KRW 500 million loaned to B on February 25, 2009, KRW 1 billion loaned to B on March 25, 2009, KRW 500 million lent to B on February 5, 2010, KRW 4.5 billion loaned to B on May 18, 2009, KRW 1 billion loaned to B on November 26, 200, and KRW 70 million loaned to B on January 15, 2010, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the interest income accrued to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.
B. On April 20, 201, the Plaintiff was sentenced to KRW 500,000,000 for a suspended sentence of three years and additional collection on July 20, 201 at the Daegu District Court Branch Branch of the Daegu District Court, for occupational embezzlement, a violation of the former Credit Business Registration and Protection of Financial Users Act, a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act. The Plaintiff was sentenced to the suspended sentence of three years and additional collection of five million won on July 28, 201.