[Seoul High Court 2007Nu4041 (Law No. 25, 2007)]

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

2. Purport of appeal: Revocation of the judgment of the first instance. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The reasons why a member should explain this case are as follows: (a) add 4 to the grounds for recognizing 5-7 of the first instance court's decision 3 pages 5-7; (b) add 10 of the 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 10 to the grounds for the first instance court's decision; and (c) refer to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Seoul Administrative Court 2006Guhap3514, 2007. 26]

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 23, Gap evidence No. 29-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1 and 2.

A. On November 1, 2005, the defendant lent 250 million won (hereinafter "the loan of this case") to ○○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○○○ (hereinafter "the loan of this case"), and received interest 42.5 million won (hereinafter "the interest of this case") on the loan of this case in 2004. On November 1, 2005, the defendant imposed and notified the plaintiff about 19,16,860 won of global income tax of 2004 and resident tax of 1,916,880 won (hereinafter "the disposition of this case").

B. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the disposition of this case and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on January 12, 2006, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on June 30, 2006.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff did not lend money to the Nonparty under any pretext on the grounds that there was no fact prior to the instant case. The Nonparty, as the Plaintiff’s wife Kim○○○, lent money to the Nonparty and set up a collateral security to secure the lending of money to the Nonparty as necessary to resolve real estate auction. At the time, the Plaintiff was inevitably recorded in the loan certificate, etc. as a creditor because Kim○○ was not registered as a resident in the Republic of Korea with a foreign nationality, and was recorded as the mortgagee as the mortgagee.

Furthermore, the total amount of the funds that ○○○ lent to the Nonparty was KRW 250 million, not KRW 290 million, and KRW 250,500,000,000, and KRW 29250,000,000, Kim○ lent the above funds to the Nonparty, and only the principal was returned by giving up interest on the wind that ○○○ and △△△△ was claiming that ○○ illegally stolen his name.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff lent 250 million won to the non-party and received 42.5 million won interest of this case from the non-party is erroneous.

(b) Related statutes;

Income Tax Act

Article 16 (Interest Income)

(1) Interest income shall be the following income generated in the relevant year:

12. Profits accruing from a non-business loan;

Article 80 (Settlement and Correction)

(2) If a person, who has made a final return on the tax base pursuant to Articles 70 through 72 or 74, falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the chief of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment, shall correct the tax base and tax amount of the year concerned (amended by Act

1. Where an omission or error exists in the contents of return;

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in light of each of the above evidence, Gap evidence 1-1-4, Gap evidence 2-10, Gap evidence 16, Gap evidence 22-2, Gap evidence 25, Gap evidence 26-1, 26-2, and Gap evidence 27, and the whole purport of the arguments in the testimony of the witness ○○○.

(1) The loan certificate under the name of the Nonparty

㈎ 소외인들 명의로 2003. 7. 28. 작성된 차용증서에는 '차용금 1억 5,000만원',상기 본인은 2003년 7월 28일자로 상기 금액 1억 5,000만원을 정히 차용함, 단 세부 약정사항은 부인 오○○에게 위임함', '위 차용인 강○○, 이○○, 오○○', '원고, 김○○ 귀하'라고 기재되어 있다.

㈏ 소외인들 명의로 2003. 8. 29. 작성된 차용증서에는 '차용금액 1억원', '차용인 이○○, 오○○, 강○○', '상기 본인들은 금 1억원을 2003. 8. 29.자로 정히 차용하고 2003. 11. 30.에 변제키로 한다. 원금에 대한 이자는 매월3% 지급하고, 연체시는 월5%의 지연이자를 지급할 것을 약정합니다(단, 이자금을 2회 이상 연체시 채권자가 언제든지 경매실행을 하여도 이의하지 않겠음)', '원고, 김○○ 귀하'라고 기재되어 있다(이하 위 2003. 7. 28. 및 2003. 8. 29.자 차용증서를 '이 사건 차용증서'라 한다).

(2) Receipts, etc. in the name of ○○○.

㈎ 오○○이 2003. 7. 30. 김○○에게 작성하여 준 영수증에는 '상기 본인은 김○○씨로부터 일금 4,200만원을 수령하였음을 각서합니다'라고 기재되어 있다.

㈏ 오○○이 2003. 12. 1. 김○○에게 작성하여 준 차용증에는 '일금 오십만원정, 위 금액을 차용함'이라고 기재되어 있다.

(3) Reasons for establishing collateral security

㈎ 강○○ 소유의 ○○시 ○○구 ○○로 ○○가 ○○번지 주택 34.41㎡에는 2003. 7. 30. 같은 달 28. 설정계약을 원인으로 채권최고액 금 2억 2,500만원, 채무자 강○○, 근저당권자 원고로 된 근저당권설정등기가, 같은 해 8. 30. 같은 달 29. 설정계약을 원인으로 채권최고액 금 1억 5,000만원, 채무자 소외인들, 근저당권자 원고로 된 근저당권설정등기가 각 경료되었다.

㈏ 그 후 위 2003. 8. 30.자 근저당설정등기는 2004. 6. 7. 같은 달 5.자 해지를 원인으로, 위 2003. 7. 30.자 근저당설정등기는 같은 해 6. 30. 같은 달 18.자 해지를 원인으로 각 말소되었다.

(4) Details of withdrawal and transfer of funds by Kim○-○

㈎ 김○○는 그녀의 ○○증권계좌(계좌번호 : ***-**-*****)에서 2003. 7. 28. 금 8,000만원 및 같은 달 29. 금 5,000만원을 각 인출하고, 같은 달 29. 이○○(이 사건 금전대여 및 근저당권설정을 중개한 법무사이다)에게 금 9.440만원을 계좌이체로 송금 하였다.

㈏ 김○○는 2003. 8. 29. 위 ○○증권계좌에서 금 350만원을 인출하였다.

㈐ 김○○는 그녀의 ○○은행계좌(계좌번호 : ***-**-*****)에서 2003. 8. 29. 금 900만원, 같은 달 30. 7,250만원을 오○○ 명의의 계좌(********)로 이체하였다.

㈑ 김○○는 2003. 11. 27. 위 ○○증권계좌에서 금 600,000원을 인출하였다.

㈒ 김○○는 2004. 6. 18. 위 ○○증권계좌에 금 1억 6,500만원을 입금하였다.

(5) On April 15, 2004, the “written confirmations prepared and made by O○○ to the Plaintiff and Kim○○○,” stated that “I confirm that I would have not repaid all of them from the date of borrowing on July 29, 2003 to the date of borrowing.”

(6) ○○○○○○○ and △△○○○○○○ on June 21, 2004 and sent to the Plaintiff’s domicile, “Notice of Claim Termination” was 10,000,000 won and 60,000 won, and 200,000,000 won and 50,000 won (the 2.5 billion,000,000,000,000 won and 50,000,000,000 won and 4.6,000,000 won and 5,000,000 won and 5,000,000 won and 4.6,000,000 won and 5,000,000 won and 5,000,000 won and 5,000,000 won and 5,000,000 won and 5,06,000,00 won and 6,00.

(7) On June 2004, the Nonparty prepared a written confirmation stating that “I will not raise any civil or criminal objection in connection with this case,” on the ground that the creditor and the debtor have made a full repayment of KRW 150 million borrowed under the name of the Plaintiff, Kim○○○ and the debtor have made a full withdrawal of KRW 250 million and KRW 100 million, and the creation of the right to collateral security related to the borrowed amount has been rescinded in entirety.”

(8) Career and asset of Kim○-○

㈎ 김○○는 1972. 3. 1.부터 1980. 2. 25.까지 ○○중학교에서 교사로 근무하였고, 1991. 7.경부터 1993. 10.경까지 ○○ 편의점을 운영하였다.

㈏ 김○○는 1990. 2. 6. ○○시 ○○구 ○○동 ○○, ○○, ○○번지 ○○아파트 ○○동 제○○호에 관하여 1988. 1. 25. 매매를 원인으로 그녀 명의로 소유권이전등기를 경료받았다.

㈐ 김○○는 2003. 9. 27. 한○○에게 위 아파트를 임차보증금 5억원, 임대차기간 2003. 12. 12.부터 2005. 12. 11.까지로 정하여 임대하였다.

㈑ 김○○는 일자불상경부터 미국으로 이주하여 거주하다가 2003. 7. 5. 국내에 거소신고를 하였으나, 주민등록이 말소되어 있었다.

D. Determination

(1) Examining the loan amount of 00,000 won, first of all, 000 won, the loan amount of 200,000 won was entered on the loan amount of 200,000 won to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s 6th day after the loan was entered on the loan amount of 10,000 won, and 10,000 won was entered on the loan amount of 200,000 won to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s 6th day after the loan was entered on the loan amount of 300,000 won, 200,000 won, and 50,000,000 won, more than the loan amount of 50,000 won, and 500,000 won,00 won,00 won, more than the loan amount of 29.4.

(2) Therefore, the instant disposition, based on the premise that the Plaintiff lent funds to the Nonparty and received interest therefrom, is unlawful without having to determine the remainder of the Plaintiff’s remaining arguments.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting it.