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

Cheong-gu Office

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. On April 16, 2014, the Defendant revoked the imposition of global income tax of KRW 24,425,00 and penalty tax of KRW 23,291,680 for the Plaintiff for the year 2006.

The reasoning for this Court's explanation concerning this case is as follows. The plaintiff's argument that part of the judgment of the court of first instance should be dismissed or added as follows, and the plaintiff's additional decision about the exclusion period of imposition should be added at the court of first instance as stated in the reasoning of the judgment. Thus, the meaning of the language used in this case is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter the same shall apply to the judgment of the court of first instance).

The term "BB contribution interest" in the name of the plaintiff in the third page is "B contribution", and "CCC (member's name DDD) contribution interest" is respectively "CCC (member's name DDD) contribution."

○ The last 4th page "Nos. 2, 3, and 6" shall read "No. 2, 3, 4, and 6" as "No. 2, 3, 6."

○ The 5th page 12 of the 5th page is the witness of the first instance trial.

After the 5th page 14, "(the confirmation of this case is accompanied by objective data, such as a detailed statement of passbook transactions, a receipt without passbook, and a copy of cashier's checks".

○ The following shall be added subsequent to the 6th page "no grounds":

“The Defendant, based on the confirmation document of this case, lent a total of KRW 49,39,395,359 to the construction association of this case from May 10, 2005 to the Plaintiff, and received KRW 587,621,567 as profit from May 10, 2005. The Defendant presented annual loans and collection money arranged to have no loan, but with some amount collected. The Defendant’s collection of some amount before the loan cannot be viewed as a monetary loan. Thus, the instant disposition of taxation based on the confirmation document that includes the above contents is unlawful. According to the above evidence, the Defendant calculated the interest income of this case for the year 2006, based on which the amount can be viewed as a loan from the Plaintiff’s account, and there is no reason to acknowledge that the Plaintiff did not claim that the amount was included in the confirmation document of this case as a loan after the withdrawal, and it did not include the portion that the Plaintiff claimed as a member’s contribution, such as interest, etc. as the Plaintiff’s association member.”

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 127(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same) provides that the interest income of this case, which is a taxable object of the instant disposition, shall be withheld at source pursuant to Article 127(1)1 of the same Act, among the interest income derived from non-business loans as prescribed by Article 16(1)12 of the same Act. Meanwhile, according to Article 128(1) of the same Act, the payment deadline is the 10th day of the month following the month in which the date of withholding tax falls. According to Article 12-3(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22038, Feb. 18, 2010), the exclusion period of the imposition of national taxes from the date following the statutory payment deadline runs from the 11th day following the month in which the interest income is paid

Therefore, since the Defendant imposed the instant disposition after January 11, 2014, which was the expiration date of the exclusion period for imposition of interest income of this case, it was unlawful.

B. Determination

According to Article 4 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act, global income of a resident is the sum of earned income, real estate rental income, temporary property income, pension income, and other incomes generated during the current year. If the aggregate of interest income and dividend income is not more than 40 million won pursuant to Article 14 (3) 4 of the same Act, it shall not be added to the calculation of the global income tax base. In addition, Article 26-2 (1) 2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes stipulates that the exclusion period of imposition of the national tax shall be seven years if a taxpayer fails

However, the facts that the total amount of interest income of this case was 97,700,000 are as seen earlier, and therefore, the interest income of this case should be added to the tax base for global income for which 2006 reverts. The fact that the Plaintiff did not file a tax base return by May 31, 2007, which is the statutory due date of return of global income tax for 2006, is as seen earlier. Accordingly, the disposition of this case is lawful since it was made before 7 years elapse from the statutory due date of return. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above-chief cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.