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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On August 3, 2007, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 00,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant loan”) with a DNA bank account under the name of AA Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (former Construction Co., Ltd., Aa General Construction, hereinafter “AA Comprehensive Construction”).

B. On September 4, 2007, BB Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BB Comprehensive Construction”) created a collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) with respect to the Plaintiff, the debtor’s “B Comprehensive Construction” and “BB00,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) with respect to the land of the Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant land”) and the maximum debt amount of KRW 100,000,000,000.

C. On March 6, 2008, BB General Construction sold the instant land toCC Construction Co., Ltd., and deposited KRW 000 million out of the price into the Plaintiff’s account in the name of EE bank (hereinafter “instant payment”). On the same day, the instant collateral security was cancelled.

D. As a result of conducting a tax investigation on BB comprehensive construction from August 28, 2013 to September 26, 2013, the director of ○○○ Regional Tax Office confirmed the facts stated in paragraphs (a) through (c) above. On December 31, 2013, the director of ○○ Regional Tax Office determined that the difference between KRW 00,000,000 and the instant payment KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 as the difference between the Plaintiff’s non-business payment under Article 16(1)12 of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 9879, Dec. 31, 2009

E. Accordingly, on April 3, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00,000,000 of global income tax for the year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection against the Defendant on May 16, 2014, but was dismissed on June 23, 2014. On August 22, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, but was dismissed on October 27, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 7, 9

(B) each entry in Category B 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleading;

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the absence of any evidence to regard the difference between the instant payment and the instant loan as the Plaintiff’s interest income, the instant disposition, which was based on a different premise, is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9879 of Dec. 31, 2009)

Article 16 (Interest Income)

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

12. Profits accruing from a non-business loan;

Enforcement Decree of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010)

The receipt date of interest income shall be the following dates:

9-2. The payment date of interest pursuant to the u3000 u300 u u u u u u u u u u u u: Provided, That in case where there is no agreement on the date of payment of interest, or where interest is paid before the payment of interest pursuant to the agreement, or interest was paid

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On March 9, 2007, the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 00,000 to BB General Construction with interest rate of KRW 4% per month and due date of repayment on December 10, 2007, and remitted KRW 00,000 to the bank account in the name of YellowF. The YellowF guaranteed the above loan obligations on the same day.

2) From March 9, 2007 to October 31, 2007, the Plaintiff remitted a total of KRW 000,000,000 for four times as follows (including the money described in paragraph (1) above) to the Yellow F and AA Comprehensive Construction (hereinafter referred to as “PF”).

Deposit Date

Other Party

Amount (won)

March 9, 2007

YFF

00,000,000

August 3, 2007

AA General Construction

00,000,000

September 4, 2007

YFF

00,000,000

October 31, 2007

YFF

00,000,000

3) On January 13, 200, the AA General Construction was established for the purpose of the construction business, etc. on March 21, 2007, and YF was appointed as the representative director of the above company on April 28, 2008, and YG was appointed as the representative director of the above company on April 28, 2008. Meanwhile, BB General Construction was a company established for the purpose of the construction business, etc. on April 7, 2005, H was appointed as the representative director of the above company on April 12, 2006, and YG was employed as the director of the above company and resigned on March 31, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6-2, 3, 9-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

In general, if the facts alleged in a lawsuit seeking revocation of disposition imposing tax are revealed in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit, it cannot be readily concluded that the other party is an unlawful disposition that failed to meet the taxation requirements, unless the other party proves the circumstances that the pertinent facts were the subject of application of the empirical rule. However, a person who has the primary burden of proof must prove the alleged fact of taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13894, Jul. 10, 1998).

In light of the above, in order to view the difference between the loan of this case and the payment of this case as the plaintiff's non-business profit (interest income), only the loan of this case is the secured debt of this case and the interest agreement on the loan of this case shall be proved, or it shall be proved that each of the above facts is presumed.

However, the following circumstances revealed in addition to the purport of the argument as seen earlier, namely, ① the name of the person who received the instant loan amounting to KRW 00,000 from the Plaintiff was a comprehensive AAF at the time, but ② the Plaintiff transferred KRW 00,000 to YF even on September 4, 2007, when the date when the instant loan was established from BB General Construction, ③ the above KRW 00,000 and KRW 00,000,000 were close to the loan amount of KRW 70,000,000,000,000 as interest rate of KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, or 20,0000,000,000,000,000 won, which was presumed to have been agreed to be paid to the Plaintiff at the time of the instant loan. Rather, there is no evidence supporting that the Plaintiff provided the instant loan interest rate of KRW 1000,5,00,000,00,00.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful, and the plaintiff's assertion is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.