자금을 대여한 뒤 부동산을 넘겨받은 부동산의 가치를 이자소득으로 볼 수 있는지 여부[각하]
Busan High Court 2015Nu24437 (Law No. 15, 2016)
Whether the value of the real estate acquired after lending funds can be viewed as interest income.
The instant real estate was transferred as security for the loan, and the ownership was not actually owned, and the instant real estate was returned later and the ownership was transferred, so the instant disposition of taxation was unlawful.
Article 16 of the Income Tax Act / [Interest Income]
Supreme Court Decision 2016Du47413 ( October 13, 2016)
○ ○
○ Head of tax office
Busan High Court 2015Nu24437 (Law No. 15, 2016)
October 13, 2016
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
When an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall become void and shall no longer exist, and its existence shall
A lawsuit seeking revocation against an administrative disposition that does not take place is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202, Dec. 13, 2012).
According to the records, the defendant filed a final appeal of this case and brought it in accordance with the purport of the judgment below.
Since it can be known that the disposition was revoked ex officio, the lawsuit in this case was already extinguished and sought for the revocation of the disposition without any legal interest, and became illegal as there was no benefit of lawsuit
Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and since this case is sufficient for the Supreme Court to directly render a judgment, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, and the total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act. It is so decided