2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 19/20 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder 1/20 by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of global income tax of 000 won (including additional tax) accrued to the Plaintiff on May 21, 2013 shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiff, on March 6, 2008, lent to the TableB the amount of KRW 400 million on March 6, 2008, KRW 20 million on March 14, 2008, and KRW 30 million on March 14, 2008, with the interest rate of KRW 420 million monthly (hereinafter referred to as “instant loan”). KimCC concurrently acquired the above loan debt of KRW 400 million on March 6, 2008, and KRW 20 million on June 25, 2008.

B. On March 27, 2009, the Plaintiff received respectively payment of KRW 85 million from KimD, the father of KimCC (hereinafter referred to as “central amount ①”) and KRW 50 million from KimCC on July 23, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “central amount”).

C. On May 27, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased the instant loan of KRW 1,50,000 from KimCC for KRW 2,000,00,000 from KRW 550,00,00,00 for KRW 1,500,00 for KRW 2,000,000 for KRW 2,000 for the instant loan of this case and its interest, and the Plaintiff purchased the instant land of KRW 1,000,000 for KRW 2,000 for KRW 50,00,000 for KRW 2,000 for the instant loan of this case and KRW 50,000 for the instant loan of KRW 2,00,000,000 for KRW 2,00 for the instant loan of KRW 1,50,000 for the instant loan of KRW 2,500,000 for the instant land and KRW 2,000,00 for the instant loan of KRW 2,5,000.

D. However, as KimCC did not deliver the second floor of the instant first house, the Plaintiff agreed with KimD, Red II on September 16, 2009 to re-purchase the instant land and housing until October 10, 2009, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 100 million as penalty if the said re-sale was not implemented by November 10, 2009.

E. The Plaintiff received on November 10, 2000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as “central amount”) from KimCC as damages related to the above sales contract, and received on December 18, 2009, KRW 10 million on December 18, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “central amount”).

F. On October 6, 2009, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff received KRW 12 million from the KimCC as compensation for damages as referred to in the foregoing paragraph (e) (hereinafter referred to as “instant damages”). On May 21, 2013, the Defendant: (i) the key amount ①, (ii) the interest income; (iii) the key amount; (iv) the interest income; and (v) the Plaintiff as other income; and (v) returned to the Plaintiff in 2009.

The global income tax was 000 won (=principal tax of 000 won + additional tax of 000 won + additional tax of 000 won + additional tax of 000 won, and hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

G. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal on July 29, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 24, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 through 8, 11 through 20 (including the pertinent numbers), part of Eul evidence Nos. 21, 28, witness B's testimony, whole purport of pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the instant disposition is unlawful. As such, the remaining part of the instant disposition, excluding the taxation disposition on other income 000 won, should be revoked.

1) As to interest income portion

A) Key amount ① (2) was appropriated for the repayment of the principal of the instant loan upon agreement between the Plaintiff and the person performing the obligation, not interest income.

B) Even if the Plaintiff was paid as interest, the Plaintiff sold the instant land No. 2, which was the only property of the KimCC on March 4, 201, to the J, and the Plaintiff became unable to recover the principal and interest of the loan to KimCC. The key amount recovered in 2009, which was the taxable year prior to the occurrence of such impossibility of recovery, ①, ② the principal of the instant loan, and ② cannot be subject to the assessment of interest income tax, as it falls short of the principal of the instant loan.

2) As to the part on other income

A) The Plaintiff did not receive KRW 12 million from the KimCC on October 6, 2009.

B) From 22,00,000 won (the amount in dispute, 3, 4) which is the revenue amount of other income, the income amount of other income shall be calculated by deducting 000 won from the necessary expenses as follows:

(1) On May 29, 2009, the ownership of the instant land and the instant housing was transferred to the New HH designated by the Plaintiff. On February 19, 2010, the Plaintiff cancelled the sales contract for the instant land and the instant housing, thereby compensating for the ownership transfer registration and cancellation registration expenses, acquisition tax, and registration tax. Since the total amount of acquisition tax, registration tax, etc. is KRW 9,911,250, the said KRW 9,911,250 should be deducted as necessary expenses.

(2) In order to construct a neighborhood living facility on the instant land No. 1, the Plaintiff spent the cost of KRW 5 million as design cost and construction material cost of KRW 5 million. On the grounds that the sales contract for the instant land and housing was rescinded, the Plaintiff incurred a loss of KRW 10 million, which is the amount equivalent to the cost. Accordingly, at least KRW 10 million should be deducted as necessary expenses.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) As to interest income portion

A) According to Article 479 and Article 477 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, if the obligor pays expenses and interest on one or more obligations, and the obligor is unable to extinguish the entire obligation, the relevant amount is appropriated for performance in the order of expenses, interest, principal, and if the obligor’s interest is equal, it shall be appropriated for the performance in the order of expenses, interest, and principal. If the obligor’s interest is equal, it shall be appropriated for the performance in the order of the obligor’s performance. However, if the obligor and the obligee have agreed on the appropriation of performance, the above statutory appropriation of performance is excluded, and the appropriation becomes effective according to the terms of the agreement.

Meanwhile, according to Article 2(1), (3), and (4), and Article 3 of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Act No. 10925, Jul. 25, 2011; hereinafter the same) and Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25376, Jun. 11, 2014; hereinafter the same), the maximum interest rate under a contract for monetary lending and lending is 30% per annum; the contractual interest exceeds the above maximum interest rate; if the obligor voluntarily pays interest exceeding the above maximum interest rate, the amount equivalent to the interest paid shall be appropriated for the principal; and if the obligor deducts the advance interest from the advance interest exceeds the amount calculated based on the above maximum interest rate, the excess amount shall be deemed appropriated for the principal.

(2) In light of the following circumstances, the aforementioned facts, the evidence revealed by the witness B along with the entry of the evidence No. 31 and the purport of the entire pleadings, etc., it is difficult to believe that the witness witness B’s testimony was made as it is, and the statement of the evidence No. 4 and No. 27, the key amount between the Plaintiff and Table BB, and KimCC, and ② there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to appropriate the loan No. 2 to repay the principal of the instant loan.

(A) On May 27, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the key amount was ① in the complaint and the preparatory documents of May 27, 2015, and that the Plaintiff received interest on the loan of this case; however, the Plaintiff asserted that there was an agreement to appropriate the key amount (i) and (ii) to repay the principal of the loan of this case after the preparatory documents dated June 17, 2015. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the nature of the loan is a interest or an original is inconsistent.

(B) On October 29, 2010, the Plaintiff agreed to the effect that GimCC shall pay KRW 168 million with interest funds to 400 million from September 2009 to October 30, 2010. The agreement is based on the premise that (i) the key amount was ①, and (ii) the amount was 400 million with the original loan around September 2009. However, if (ii) the original loan was appropriated for the repayment of the original loan of this case, (iii) the original loan of this case around September 2009 = [the following] Article 2(1), (3), (4), and (3) of the former Interest Limitation Act and Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act are applied with the highest interest rate of KRW 00 (00,000,000; -1.000,000,000).

(C) On December 31, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the agreement on October 29, 2010, which was concluded on December 31, 2010, was invalidated by the agreement on December 31, 201, with the purport that “the amount of interest shall be calculated by two copies per month for KRW 310,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which is the basis for calculating interest, is different from the key amount in the said agreement.

(3) Therefore, pursuant to Article 479 and Article 477(3) of the Loan Act, the key amount ①, (2) the interest on the loan amount of KRW 400 million which was first due pursuant to Article 479 and Article 477(3) should be appropriated for the repayment of the Loan in the order of “the loan amount of KRW 400 million first due ? the loan amount of KRW 20 million due ? The loan amount of KRW 20 million due.”

However, for the purpose of paying the principal and interest of the instant loan, KimD and KimCC may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the following issues: ①, as seen earlier, the fact that TableB paid the principal and interest of the instant loan; ② the fact that TableB deducted the interest rate of KRW 24 million from March 6, 2008 until May 6, 2008; and the fact that KimD paid KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff for the purpose of paying the principal and interest of the instant loan on July 22, 2009, the fact that the Plaintiff did not dispute between the parties, or that the Plaintiff paid KRW 11 and 13, and the overall purport of the arguments and arguments. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s interest and interest interest for KRW 40 million from the instant loan was appropriated for the repayment of KRW 400,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000.

OO

B) Whether there was an irrecoverable reason to collect the instant loan

(1) According to Articles 51(7) and 55(2)1 and 25(2)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same), when calculating the gross amount of profits accruing from a non-business loan, the relevant non-business loan amount shall be calculated by preferentially subtracting the principal from the recovered amount if it is impossible to recover all or part of the principal and interest from the debtor or a third party because the pertinent non-business loan amount is not recoverable due to the debtor's bankruptcy, compulsory execution, execution or discontinuation of the business, or the debtor's death, disappearance, unknown whereabouts, etc.

On the other hand, in a case where the amount recovered by the time is below the principal due to the occurrence of a certain reason not to recover the principal and interest obligation before the final return of tax base or the determination and correction of tax base and tax amount on interest income from non-business loans, even if there exists an interest income actually recovered in the taxable year prior to the occurrence of such a cause not to recover (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du9433, Jun. 28, 2012).

(2) Facts of recognition

(A) On February 16, 2009, the Plaintiff received a promissory note amounting to KRW 58 billion from Kim KK as a security for the instant loan, and when Kim KK delayed the payment of the said promissory note, even if he/she is subject to compulsory execution, he/she did not raise any objection. A notary public applied for a compulsory auction on the instant promissory note No. 158 (hereinafter referred to as “instant promissory note No. 158”) on the real estate owned by Kim KK, which is based on the instant promissory note No. 2009, and purchased the said real estate in KRW 1.5 billion. The Plaintiff received part of the instant loan from Kim K by offsetting, by offsetting the dividend amount to be received as a creditor of Kim K and the sales amount, and by offsetting the said sales amount.

(B) At the time of the agreement on May 27, 2009, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 700 million from the KimCC if the sales contract for the instant land and housing concluded for the purpose of accord and satisfaction of the instant loan, etc. was not fulfilled as agreed upon. LL provided joint and several surety for the aforementioned obligations of KimCC.

(C) Since 2010, KimCC operated a real estate agent office, e has paid the value-added tax in 2010 and 201, and the comprehensive income tax in 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 10, 14, 24, 25, and 26, result of an order to submit taxation information to the defendant of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

(3) In light of the above facts, solely on the facts stated in the evidence No. 2-1 to No. 4, and the evidence No. 3, and the facts alleged by the plaintiff, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that there are grounds such as bankruptcy, compulsory execution, execution of a sentence, or discontinuance of business, ② Death, disappearance, and missing, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the loan claim of this case constitutes an unrecoverable claim under Article 51(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the above KRW 00 is subject to the interest income tax for 2009. The Plaintiff’s assertion on other premise is without merit.

2) As to the part on other income

A) Revenue amount of other incomes

In light of the aforementioned facts and the overall purport of the evidence revealed in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to believe that part of the evidence Nos. 21 and 28 of the evidence Nos. 21 and 28 was stated as it is, and no other evidence exists to prove that the KimCC paid KRW 12 million to the Plaintiff on Oct. 6, 2009. Thus, the other income amount is the key amount, and KRW 3,200,000,000 in total.

(1) Key amount: ①, ③, and ④ In the case of the Plaintiff, KimCC paid the amount corresponding to the account transfer to the Plaintiff, there is objective evidence as to the payment. However, in the case of the key amount, there is no objective evidence such as receipt, etc.

(2) Since KimCC, as the Plaintiff’s obligor, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff to confirm the existence of a debt with the Seoul Northern District Court 2015Gahap1370, there is a possibility that the Plaintiff may excessively state the amount paid to the Plaintiff. In addition, the KimCC’s statement as to whether to pay the key amount ⑤ is inconsistent.

(3) According to the agreement between the Plaintiff and KimCC’s father, KimD and Red II, the Plaintiff may be paid penalty after November 10, 2009. However, the point of payment is earlier than that of the Defendant’s assertion.

B) Whether necessary expenses are recognized

(1) Article 27(1) of the former Income Tax Act provides that “The amount to be included in necessary expenses in the calculation of real estate rental income amount, business income amount, or other income amount paid by the Plaintiff to HaH shall be the sum of expenses corresponding to the total income amount in the pertinent year that are generally accepted as ordinary expenses.” Here, “generally accepted expenses” refers to expenses that are deemed to have been paid if a person in the same situation as the person liable for tax payment is in the same situation. Determination of whether such expenses constitute expenses shall be made objectively by comprehensively taking into account the details, purpose, form, amount, effect, etc. of the disbursement, and barring special circumstances, if such expenses are not legally allowed or are in violation of social order, the relevant expenses shall be excluded from necessary expenses (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du12422, Nov. 12, 2009).

(B) Facts of recognition

① New H paid KRW 00,00,000, the aggregate of the acquisition tax, registration tax, and local education tax on the instant land and housing No. 2 in Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land and housing on May 29, 209.

② On February 19, 2010, the Plaintiff agreed to cancel each sales contract on the instant land and housing with the KimCC on February 19, 2010.

(3) A new H was paid expenses, etc. related to acquisition tax and registration tax by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-4, Gap evidence 5-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

(C) Key amount 3, 4, as the damages for breach of each sales contract on the land and housing in this case, the damages for breach of each sales contract on the land and housing in this case, the damages for breach or termination of a contract under Article 21 (1) 10 of the former Income Tax Act constitutes 'the penalty or damages for breach or termination of a contract' and constitutes 'other income for breach or termination

Article 3(1) of the former Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (amended by Act No. 10203, Mar. 31, 2010) provides that “No person shall register a real right to real estate under the name of the title trustee pursuant to a title trust agreement,” thereby prohibiting title trust, and Article 4(1) and (2) of the same Act provides that “No person shall register a real right to real estate under the name of the title trustee pursuant to a title trust agreement with the title trustee, with the ownership of the land and housing in the instant case, and that new HH paid an amount equivalent to the acquisition tax, registration tax, etc. on the land and housing in the instant case to the title trustee.” However, if a person who received a payment in substitutes or purchases land and housing has acquired the ownership of the land and housing in the instant case, then it is difficult to deem that a title trust agreement was paid to the title trustee as an acquisition tax, etc. on real estate due to a title trust agreement, and thus, the other party who did not know that the real right was paid under a title trust agreement.

Therefore, since the amount equivalent to the acquisition tax and registration tax paid by the Plaintiff to new H cannot be recognized as necessary expenses, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(2) The amount equivalent to the design service cost and material cost for the instant land No. 1

(A) The burden of proof of tax base is on the tax authority, and the tax base is deducted from income, so the burden of proof of income and necessary expenses is on the tax authority. However, considering that the necessary expenses are favorable to the taxpayer and most of the factual relations generating necessary expenses are located in the territory controlled by the taxpayer and it is easy to prove it, it is consistent with the concept of fairness to recognize the necessity of proof to the taxpayer by permitting the presumption of non-existence with respect to necessary expenses for which the taxpayer does not engage in the verification activities (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1588, Sept. 23, 2004).

(B) The amount equivalent to the design service cost and material cost of the instant land No. 1, which the Plaintiff claimed that the Plaintiff spent, is the key amount, ③, and ④ the necessary expenses corresponding to the instant land, but the amount ought to be proved by the Plaintiff. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the design service cost is KRW 5 million only with the entries and images of the evidence No. 6-1 and No. 2, and that the material cost is KRW 5 million, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(iii)the amount of legitimate tax;

A) In a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a taxation disposition, the subject matter of adjudication is whether the tax base and tax amount notified by the tax authority exist objectively. In a case where the tax base and tax amount recognized by the disposition are excessive compared to the legitimate tax base and tax amount, the disposition of imposition is unlawful only to the extent exceeding the lawful tax base and tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6504, Mar. 28, 198

B) As seen earlier, the part that recognized the interest income amount in the instant disposition in excess of 000 won, which is the legitimate interest income amount, and the part that recognized the other income amount in excess of 000 won, which is the legitimate other income amount, is unlawful. As such, the amount in excess of 000 won (=000 won +00 won) should be excluded from the amount of global income for which 2

Considering this point, the legitimate tax amount of global income tax for the year 2009, as shown in the separate political party tax calculation table, is KRW 000,000. Therefore, the exceeding part of the imposition disposition of global income tax for the year 2009 should be revoked as unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim of this case exceeding the above legitimate tax amount is justified, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.