The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

가. 서울지방국세청은 2012. 9. 21.부터 2012. 12. 9.까지 주식회사 OOOOO (이하 ' OOOOO'이라고 한다)에 대한 법인세통합조사를 실시하였는데, 그 과정에서'◆◆ ◆◆◆대부'라는 상호로 대부업을 하는 bbb이 아래 표 기재와 같이 OOOOO의 대표이사 aaa에게 합계 000억 원을 대여하고, 그에 대한 이자로 0억 0,000만 원을 수령한뒤 이를 원고를 비롯한 투자자들에게 분배한 사실이 확인되었음을 이유로 피고에게 원고가수령한 이자 0,000만 원(이하 '이 사건 이자'라 한다)에 대하여 종합소득세를 과세할 것을 통보하였다. 대여일자

Use

Lending Amount

Interest Amount

201*. *. ** 주식회사 △△△△ 인수자금등000억 원0억 0,000만 원201*. *. **. 주식회사 ■■■■ 인수자금 등

0 billion won 00 billion won 00 million won

B. The Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax of KRW 00,00,00 (including additional tax) for the interest income of this case* 201* (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection with the Director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office *.*. *. *. *. * *. 201* *. *. *. *. the Seoul Regional Tax Office made a decision to rectify the tax base and tax amount according to the result of re-audit as to whether the Plaintiff lent the instant disposition and actually received profit. D. Accordingly, the Defendant re-audited the interest income of this case from 201* 201* 201. * from 201. * the same month to 20, and notified the Plaintiff of the result that the instant disposition was justifiable * *. *. * the Plaintiff.

E. The plaintiff is dissatisfied with this and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal**, but it was dismissed on * 201*.2*.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, at around 200*, became a bad credit holder due to the bankruptcy ofCC (hereinafter referred to as “CC”) with the representative director, and prepared a written confirmation that the Plaintiff would receive fees from AAA and received the interest of this case at the corporate office for the purpose of maintaining a livelihood. At the time, the Plaintiff did not have the ability to lend an amount equivalent to KRW 0 billion, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff actually received the interest of this case, and the actual owner of the interest income of this case is AA. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case premised on the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the interest income of this case is unlawful against the principle of substantial taxation.

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) aaa은 201*. *. **. bbb으로부터, 000억 원을 차용하여 주식회사 △△△△를 인수하려는 ccc에게 대여하고, 00억 원을 차용하여 주식회사 ■■■■를 인수하려는 ddd에게 대여하였으며(이하 위 000억 원 및 00억 원을 합하여 '이 사건 대여금'이라 한다), bbb은 aaa으로부터 위 000억 원에 대한 201*. *. *.부터 201*. *.**.까지의 이자로 0억 0,000만 원, 위 00억 원에 대한 201*. *. **.부터 201*. *. **.까지의 이자로 0억 0,000만 원을 각 지급받았다. 2) bbb은 201*. **. *. 서울지방국세청의 OOOOO에 대한 조사 과정에서 aaa으로부터받은 위 이자 0억 0,000만 원을 다시 투자자들에게 현금으로 분배해 주었다고 주장하면서 아래와 같은 확인서(이하 '이 사건 bbb 작성 확인서'라 한다)를 제출하였다. 본인은 주식회사 △△△△ M&A; 자금 등 000억 원을 aaa에게 대출하여 주고 주식담보를 매각하여 발생된 대출이자(3%) 0억 0,000만 원을 붙임 명세 투자자에게 직접 분배 지급하였음을 확인합니다. 본인은 주식회사 ■■■■ M&A; 자금 등 00억 원[00억 원(3%) 및 0억 원(4%)]을 aaa에게 대출하여 주고 주식담보를 매각하여 발생된 대출이자 0억 0,000만 원을 붙임 명세 투자자에게 직접 분배 지급하였음을 확인합니다.

3) The confirmation of the instant BB preparation is accompanied by the details of interest income as listed below.

(4) The Plaintiff prepared a written confirmation stating the Plaintiff’s name, resident registration number, and contact information (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Plaintiff’s written confirmation”) along with the content that “the Plaintiff received as interest,” and that “the Plaintiff received as interest the Plaintiff’s name, resident registration number, and contact information,” and the Plaintiff’s written confirmation was submitted in the course of the investigation of the Seoul Regional Tax Office’s OOO.

5) After the instant disposition issued a certificate of content requiring AA to pay taxes imposed on the interest of this case. On the other hand, AA responded to the following. On the other hand, AA paid to the Plaintiff KRW 20 million*.* 0.0 million* 0.0 million* 0.0 billion* on December 22, 2014. The Plaintiff visited the office with the notice of taxation notice prior to consultation with the Plaintiff, and was confirmed to have been paid in installments. At the same time, the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to pay more than half of the amount of tax expected to have been first paid, and the Plaintiff was required to pay KRW 00,000,000, more than half of the amount of tax expected to have been paid in advance, which was agreed upon with the Plaintiff on April 1, 2015. However, the Plaintiff did not have any liability for damages to the Plaintiff, including the remainder of the amount of tax payment * 200,000,0000,000,0000,0000.

7) BB made a statement that AA was one of the investors of the instant loan in the course of the tax investigation with respect to OOO, and the Defendant decided and notified 201* 00,000,00 global income tax in 201* 10,000 with respect to the interest income listed in paragraph 3 above, bB filed an objection with the actual holder of the said interest income as AA, and filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the said disposition of global income tax (Seoul Administrative Court 200*** Gu 1*).

8) The Plaintiff was in office as the representative director ofCC, and** was closed on or around 200*.*, and the Plaintiff was responsible for the following obligations in relation toCC.

A) The NN Guarantee Fund (NNFF) filed a lawsuit (Seoulo District Court 2008Oo27**) seeking reimbursement for reimbursement and joint and several sureties against the Plaintiff, etc. and filed a lawsuit with the Plaintiff, etc. (Seoulo District Court 2008Oo27**.*. The Plaintiff, in collaboration with **, etc., that the NNN Guarantee Fund will pay damages for delay of KRW 0,000,000 and KRW 0,000,000 among them, which became final and conclusive around that time.

B) The plaintiff filed a lawsuit (Seoulo District Court 2008O34***.*. *. 'the plaintiff has paid 0,000,000 won and delayed payment damages for 0,000,000 won among the plaintiff and its late payment damages for 0,000 won within the limit of 0,000,000,000 withCC, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time. (c) DDD corporation has filed a lawsuit (Seoul District Court 200O******* the 00o* the 00* the 00-O* the 000-O* the 000-O* the 000-O* the 00-O* the 00-O * the 00-O * the 00-O * the 00-O * the 200-O * the 200-O * the 200-O * the 100- the above * 1000-

On the other hand, the instant disposition is based on the premise that the Plaintiff obtained income equivalent to the interest of the instant case, and there is no objective data to regard that the Plaintiff received KRW 00,00,00 as the Plaintiff’s written confirmation, or as the Plaintiff’s written confirmation, in light of the following circumstances recognized by the overall purport of the facts of recognition and pleadings, or there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Rather, in full view of the following circumstances, the actual owner of the interest income of the instant case appears to be either AA or AB, rather than the Plaintiff, and its investors. Accordingly, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful against the principle of substantial taxation. ① (i) The Plaintiff, such as financial transaction content, etc. lent or invested in BB, or invested in BB, or made a loan or investment in each of the instant written confirmations by the Plaintiff; (ii) there is no objective data to regard that the Plaintiff received KRW 00,000 as the representative director from 200 to 200, 200, * the Plaintiff’s financial statements from 200,002.

② In addition to the fact that the Plaintiff received interest amount of KRW 00 million and KRW 00 million as interest, the Plaintiff’s confirmation document of the Plaintiff does not contain any content that is able to know the amount of the loan, the party who paid the interest, the other party to the confirmation, the time and method of receipt, etc., and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff actually received the interest of this case solely based on the said confirmation document (the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff, who prepared the above confirmation document and submitted it directly to the tax authority, but the said confirmation document appears to have been submitted to the tax authority pursuant to bb). The details of the interest revenue attached to the written confirmation of the instant case are merely nothing more than what is written in accordance with the Plaintiff’s confirmation document of this case.

③ The Plaintiff asserts that AA is the actual recipient of the interest of this case. In light of the fact that: (a) the Plaintiff requested the payment of the tax imposed on the interest of this case; (b) the Plaintiff actually paid 00 million won, which is a part of the tax; and (b) the Plaintiff stated to the effect that AA is an investor of the loan of this case in the course of investigation into OOO; and (b) the director’s revenue attached to the letter of confirmation to prepare the instant Bb does not exist, it is reasonable to deem that the actual recipient of the interest of this case is the investor of AA or its investor.

④ The Defendant asserts that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to believe the Plaintiff’s assertion in the appeal procedure against the instant disposition by re-afusing the statement about the subject to whom the interest accrued accrued or submitting new data that are difficult to trust. However, the Plaintiff consistently asserted in the appeal procedure against the instant disposition that he is not the actual recipient of the interest accrued. The Plaintiff’s partial change of the assertion concerning the subject to whom the interest accrued or additional data pertaining thereto was submitted was in a position that the Plaintiff was difficult to accurately understand the subject of the interest accrued, or was seeking to pay taxes related to the interest accrued from AA.A. to receive payment. The Defendant’s assertion cannot be rejected solely on the above grounds cited by the Defendant.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.