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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On April 21, 2003, the Plaintiff received a loan from the OO-si Facilities Management Corporation for the three-story facilities above the ground in BB stadiums, and then the “CCC Convention Center” using the above facilities operated e-mail business, marriage, etc. (hereinafter “instant business establishment”).

B. The Defendant investigated the instant place of business from June 2, 2009 to September 30, 2009, and investigated the instant place of business from June 2, 2009, and found that the Plaintiff, a joint place of business of 60% shares in the instant place of business from 2006, and for non-business proceeds from 2004 to 2008 (including additional taxes for 2004: OO, 2005: OO, 2006: OO, 2007: OO, 2008: OO, 2008: OO, and 60% shares in the instant place of business, were omitted from filing a report, and thus, imposed an additional tax for 207O (including additional tax for 2006) on August 10, 207 (including additional tax for 2000).

다. 이에 대하여 원고는 2010, 10. 29. 조세심판원에 심판청구를 하였고, 2012. 4. 9. 조세심판원은 '이 사건 사업장에 대한 원고의 출자 또는 손익분배비율을 재고하여 그에 따라 과세표준과 세액을 경정하여야 한다'는 취지로 재조사결정을 하였으며, 피고는 재조사를 거쳐 2012. 5. 21. 과세유지결정을 하였다.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 10, 11, Eul evidence 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since the Plaintiff transferred the Plaintiff’s share in the instant workplace to investors and owned only the Plaintiff’s share in 5.73% from 2005, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff’s share is 60% is unlawful.

(2) As to the part on which the Defendant imposed a non-business profit by deeming the interest income on the loan as an interest income, the said interest income was collected by DD from E to the instant workplace through E, and no interest income was accrued as the Plaintiff, and the year to which the non-business profit reverts should be re-determined as of the date of payment of interest under each lending agreement.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) On December 17, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a joint equity agreement with the ForeignF to grant 10% of its rights to operate and calculate profits and losses at the pertinent workplace. On the 26th of the same month, the Plaintiff entered into an investment agreement with the ForeignF to convert the entity operating the instant business into a corporation, and the FF and AnsanG pay OGs, and their shares are 40% of their shares, and the investment and management delegation agreement with the intent to have management rights of the company (hereinafter referred to as the “investment agreement”).

(B) After the delay of the instant investment agreement 1, EF and EG invested an amount equivalent to OE won from 2003, 30 December 30, 2003 to 30 January 2004. They appointed EE as an agent for exercising the right of management at the instant workplace and began to operate the instant workplace from January 1, 2004 to 6, 2009.

(C) However, as stipulated in the instant investment arrangement, the entity operating the business was not converted into a corporation due to the non-permission of Incheon Metropolitan City, and the occurrence of a problem surrounding the allocation of shares among investors, such as the total amount of shares in the instant workplace transferred by Jung to investors in order to raise funds for the instant business, exceeds 100%, etc., the FF and Ansan did not make any more investments.

(D) Since the time when the Plaintiff leased the instant place of business, the Plaintiff was lacking financial capability to cover the construction cost, and invested money from investors to cover the required funds, and transferred the same amount of money corresponding to the investment amount. However, there was a dispute among the investors due to the occurrence of a problem such as the transfer of an investor’s share to another person and the total sum of shares transferred to the Plaintiff exceeds 100%, and the Plaintiff and the investors made efforts to adjust the share relationship.

(E) On October 11, 2012, the above investors filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of dividends from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2007 (Seoul Central District Court 2010 Gohap82030, hereinafter referred to as "the separate lawsuit") against the Plaintiff, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, F, Ansan, Ansan, and EJ, and the investors who acquired shares in the business of this case were not converted into a corporation of the business of this case. Accordingly, the investors who acquired shares in the business of this case were determined to be members of the business of this case, and thus, the court ruled that "the plaintiffs, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, G, or EG, jointly and severally liable for the payment of dividends to the above investors."

On the other hand, E, Ansan, and YJ appealed (Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na90230), and on January 22, 2014, GH et al. concluded an investment contract with the Plaintiff and decided to distribute profits to four times a year, and thus, the dismissal judgment was rendered on the ground that it does not have any assertion or evidence as to the calculation of the profits settled each quarter, which is the fiscal term of the instant workplace. The final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2014Da19790) is pending.

(f) Details of the acquisition of shares by investors confirmed at the end of December 2008 (based on the terms of agreement with the Plaintiff and the actual amount of investment by investors) are as follows:

1) On June 20, 2003, Jung II agreed to invest gold OOOOO and receive 8.35% shares. However, it was actually 8.25% shares by investing gold OOOOO, and Jung II transferred the said shares to the Plaintiff on March 30, 2005, but on December 14, 2006, it was again granted 7,5% shares by investing goldOOOOO in the Plaintiff.

2) On July 5, 2003, KR has been granted 10% of its equity interest to the Plaintiff, but it was actually recognized as 7.5% of its equity interest by investing in gold OOOOO. The Plaintiff recovered all of its equity interest, and on December 10, 2004, the Plaintiff Kim H invested goldOOO in the Plaintiff and was granted 7.5% of the said equity interest recovered by this K.

3) On September 25, 2003, New L was granted 5% equity interest to the Plaintiff on September 25, 2003.

4) around October 7, 2003, the J agreed to invest OOOO and receive 10% shares in the Plaintiff, but it was actually recognized as 9.25% of the investment in OOOOO.

5) The FF acquired 10% of the equity interest in 2003, 12,22.

6) The FF and Ansan have been recognized as 24.77% of their shares by investing the actual gold OOE in the Fund.

7) MM was granted 6% of its contribution shares from the Plaintiff on December 13, 2004.

8) On December 16, 2004, SongN invested OOOO and was granted 2.5% of shares to the Plaintiff. After that, OE paid OOOOE to SongN on March 30, 2005 and acquired 2.5% of shares.

9) On January 31, 2005, Kim H invested OOOO in the Plaintiff and was granted 11% equity interest.

10) 최PP는 2004. 12. 29. 원고에게 금 OOOO원을 투자하고 지분 10%를 부여받았는데, 원고는 2008. 9. 24. 최PP의 지분을 모두 회수하였다. 한편, ① 이QQ은 2006. 10. 14. 원고에게 금 OOOO원을 투자하였는데, 2008. 9.경 위와 같이 원고가 회수한 최PP의 지분 10% 중 5%를 부여받았고, ② 변RR은 2007. 7. 5. 원고에게 금 OOOO원을 투자하고 지분 5%를 부여받기로 하였는데, 2008. 9.경 위와 같이 원고가 회수한 최PP의 지분 10% 중 나머지 5%를 부여받았다.

Final equity relationship.

Investor

Date of Agreement

Amount of agreed investment

Agreed Investment Shares

Actual Investment Amount

Actual Investment Shares

H Kim H

December 10, 2004

OOO

7.5

OOO

18.5

January 31, 2005

OOO

11

Schedule II

December 14, 2006

OOO

7.5

OOO

7.5

nL

September 25, 2003

OOO

5

OOO

5

이QQ

October 14, 2006

OOO

5

OOO

5

Trans-R

July 5, 2007

OOO

5

5

MM

December 13, 2004

6

6

AnG, EF

December 26, 2003

OOO

40

24.77

F. F

December 22, 2003

10

10

JJ

October 7, 2003

OOO

10

OOO

9.25

E

on March 30, 2006

OOO

2.5

OOO

2.5

6.48

Total

100

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, each of the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence No. 12, Eul evidence No. 4 through 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

" (2) 원고의 지분비율에 대한 판단'", (가) 소득세법(2009. 12. 31. 법률 제9897호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제43조는 '사업소득이 발생하는 사업을 공동으로 경영하고 그 손익을 분배하는 공동사업(경영에 참여하지 아니하고 출자만 하는 대통령령이 정하는 출자공동사업자가 있는 공동사업을 포함한다)의 경우에는 공동사업장별로 그 소득금액을 계산하되, 그 소득금액은 해당공동사업을 경영하는 각 거주자 간에 약정된 손익분배비율(약정된 손익분배비율이 없는 경우에는 지분비율)에 의하여 분배되었거나 분배될 소득금액에 따라 각 공동사업자별로 분배한다'고 규정하고 있다.

On the other hand, as the partnership agreement provides for that "a partnership may transfer its equity shares to a third party", where a partnership agreement provides for that "a partnership agreement may transfer its equity shares to a third party collectively, a union member may transfer all of his/her equity shares to a third party without the consent of all other union members. However, even if a part of the equity shares is transferred to a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da4247, Apr. 23, 2009). However, it is reasonable to deem that the transfer of equity shares of the partnership is valid in cases where the transfer of equity shares is for the purpose of attracting funds, not for the purpose of jointly operating the business, and it is deemed that all union members consent to the transfer of

(B) The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as mentioned above, namely, (1) the FF and Ansan acquired an aggregate of 40% shares under the investment agreement of this case and have management rights; (2) there was an accurate distribution of profits settled quarterly from January 1, 2004 to shareholders after the establishment of the pertinent workplace in proportion to their investments; and (2) the Plaintiff, EF, and EF, were not entirely incorporated into the association members for any investor who acquired shares in the instant workplace; (3) the Plaintiff, EF, and EG were deemed to have acquired shares in the instant workplace from January 8, 2005 to February 27, 2008 without any restriction on the transfer of shares in the instant workplace; and (4) the transferee of the instant workplace, regardless of whether it was prior to or after the conclusion of the instant investment agreement, shall be deemed to have received shares in the instant workplace without any restriction on the transfer of shares in the instant workplace; and (5) the Plaintiff and EFG were also deemed to have received shares from investors in the instant workplace.

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that investors who acquired shares in the instant workplace take the position of partners who jointly run the instant workplace. As such, investors were omitted from the amount of income at the time of filing a final return by investors, and the fact that they prepared a written confirmation confirming that the principal and interest of loans was paid in full on February 27, 2008. In full view of these facts, it is reasonable to see that the above 362,741,580 won interest income (non-business income) occurred in the instant workplace, and that such income was omitted from the amount of income at the time of filing a final return of global

(나) 이자소득의 수입시기에 관하여 보건대, 구 소득세법 시행령(2009. 2. 4. 대통령령 제21301호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제45조 저ᅵ9호의2에 의하면 이자소득의 수입시기는 비영업대금의 이익 약정에 의한 이자지급일로 하되, 이자지급일의 약정이 없거나 약정에 의한 이자지급일 전에 이자를 지급받는 경우에는 그 이자지급일로 하도록 규정하고 있다.

According to the evidence and the purport of all the arguments mentioned above, AD agreed not to enter into an agreement on the date of interest payment when borrowing money from the place of business of this case, but to pay interest on the first installment from September 6, 2004 to the end of each month, but it is acknowledged that interest was paid in an irregular manner. Thus, it is not erroneous in the calculation of the comprehensive income tax by the receipt date of interest payment.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

With respect to the instant business establishment, there were sources of non-business profits from 2004 to 2008, and annual revenues were OOO. As seen earlier, each global income tax disposition is imposed on the Plaintiff’s joint business place and the share ratio of the Plaintiff’s joint business place was 13.98% in 2005 and 13.98% in 2006 to 2008 and 60% in 2008. Thus, it is reasonable to cancel the entire amount of the tax disposition and impose additional tax on each year. Accordingly, it is reasonable to calculate the income in proportion to the Plaintiff’s share ratio and impose additional tax.

3. Conclusion

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