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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On April 2, 2014, to May 10, 2014, the commissioner of Daegu Regional Tax Office found the omission of the Plaintiff’s tax investigation (the global income tax for the year 2008-2012) on the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the omission of the Plaintiff’s report on the total amount of interest income (hereinafter “instant interest income”) even though the Plaintiff lent money to ParkB and received interest income.

B. Accordingly, on June 2, 2014 and the 10th of the same month, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the total amount of the global income tax for the year 2008 to 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On August 26, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the above disposition, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the decision on December 10, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-5, Gap evidence 2-1-5, Eul evidence 1-5, Eul evidence 11-1, Eul evidence 12-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although it was true that the Plaintiff omitted the report of interest income in the instant case, as a result of the deliberation by the Tax Offense Investigation Review Committee, it was recognized that the Plaintiff did not omit the report of the said interest income by fraud or other unlawful act. Since the Plaintiff received both the interest income in the instant case and the principal thereof as the passbook in the name of the Plaintiff, it is unlawful for the Defendant to apply the unfair under-reported penalty tax (40%) to the Plaintiff, instead of the general under-reported penalty tax (10%). Accordingly, the total amount of penalty tax exceeding the total amount of the under-reported penalty tax

B. Relevant statutes

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

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On April 19, 2004, the Plaintiff loaned O billion won to ParkB on April 19, 2007 by setting the due date for payment as the period of payment on April 19, 2007, and received an annual interest of 1/100 according to the ratio of 0.5% per month on April 19 every year (hereinafter “the primary contract”). Accordingly, from April 19, 2005 to 2007, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 00 million on three occasions from ParkB during the period from April 19, 2005 to 2007.

2) After that, while the Plaintiff extended the repayment period of the first contract to April 19, 2009, the Plaintiff was unable to receive the principal and interest for the year 2008 and 2009 due to the aggravation of ParkB’s financial standing, due to the aggravation of ParkB’s financial standing, the Plaintiff changed the content of the contract that received the first contract in cash from ParkB on April 19, 2009, and extended the payment period of the first contract to April 19, 201, and paid the interest of 20% per annum to ParkB on April 19 each year. In addition, the Plaintiff extended additional O0 million won to ParkB on the same day and received the interest of 10% per annum (hereinafter “ second contract”).

3) ParkB did not pay each interest for the year 2010 and year 2011 under each of the above contracts to the Plaintiff. From April 13, 2012 to June 29, 2012, from the total amount of interest for each of the above contracts, the total amount of O00 million won plus the sum of interest for O00 million won (including interest in arrears) was transferred to the account of the Plaintiff in its own or another person’s name as follows.

4) The Plaintiff subscribed to financial products, such as non-taxable savings and insurance products with a maturity of 10 years in the name of the Plaintiff, EE-securities comprehensive consignment products, and pension products with a maturity of 10 years in the name of the Plaintiff, among the listed KRW 000,000,000,000,000 in its own account.

5) As a result of deliberation by the Daegu regional tax office, the tax offense investigation and deliberation committee did not discover fraud or improper act against the Plaintiff, and deemed that the Plaintiff was not significantly difficult to impose and collect taxes due to active action, such as not using the borrowed account, and thus, did not approve the conversion of the Plaintiff into the tax offense investigation by the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] The above evidence, each of the evidence Nos. 2 through 7, and 13 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Article 47-3(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11124 of Dec. 31, 201) provides for "an amount equivalent to 40/100 of the amount calculated by multiplying the calculated tax base by the ratio of the amount of the under-reported tax base (unfairly underreported tax base) to the amount of the tax base by unlawful means." Article 47-2(2) provides that "an act of falsely concealing or under-reported tax invoices" (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11124 of Dec. 31, 201) or "an act of forging or under-reported tax invoices" (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2350 of Feb. 2, 2012) provides that "an act of forging or under-reported tax invoices" under Article 47-3(1)6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 1006 of Dec. 6, 2012>

Article 47-3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, each subparagraph of Article 27(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 12-2(1) of the current Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 3(6) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the legal nature of penalty taxes for underreporting is as follows: (a) where Article 47-3(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes conceals or disguises all or part of the facts that serve as the basis for calculating the tax base or amount of national taxes, it is difficult to impose and collect taxes on the taxpayer because it is impossible or considerably difficult to induce the taxpayer to faithfully report the tax base; and (b) Article 27(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides that the purpose of imposing penalty taxes more than those of the general underreporting than those of the 3rd or underreporting, such as “an unlawful method,” and Article 97(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides for “an unlawful method or underreporting tax base.”

2) In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances revealed through the evidence as seen earlier, i.e., non-taxable savings and insurance products, pension products, etc., which are generally owned, or entrusted to securities can be acknowledged as an ordinary method of management of financial assets. Thus, it cannot be evaluated as an unlawful act to make it difficult to detect taxation requirements in itself. ② Even if the Plaintiff transferred all interest and principal under each of the instant contracts to his/her own account, and thereafter there was a transfer of some funds such as withdrawal and deposit between the Plaintiff and his/her wife, it is difficult to readily conclude that the other party was either due to the intention of active income or difficult to trace funds by the National Tax Service, and it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff’s tax investigation was conducted for the purpose of making it difficult to identify that it was conducted for the Plaintiff’s 10th time of borrowing and sealing without the Plaintiff’s signature or sealing. The same applies to cases where the Plaintiff’s submission of 20th time of the Plaintiff’s allegation that the Plaintiff did not have any other reason to prove the Plaintiff’s omission or omission of the Plaintiff’s interest income at the time of the Plaintiff’s report.

3) Ultimately, the portion exceeding the amount of a general under-reported penalty tax, which is not an unfair under-reported penalty tax, among the instant disposition, should be revoked as unlawful. According to the evidence supra, where general under-reported penalty tax, which is not an unfair under-reported penalty tax, is applied to each global income tax that is recognized for the Plaintiff, the global income tax amount that is recognized for the Plaintiff, 208, OO09, 2010, OO00;

It can be known that it is the OOwon in 201 and the OOwon in 2012.

Therefore, on June 2, 2014, the part exceeding the OO in the disposition of imposition of global income tax for the year 2008 imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on June 2, 2014, the part exceeding the OOO won in the disposition of imposition of global income tax for the year 2009, the part exceeding the OO won in the disposition of imposition of global income tax for the year 2010, the part in the disposition of imposition of global income tax for the year 201, the part in excess of the OO won in the disposition of imposition of global income tax for the year 201, the part in excess of the OO won in the disposition of imposition of global income tax for the year 201, the part in excess of the OO won in the disposition of imposition of global income tax for the year 2009 and the scope in the revocation of global income tax for the year 2012 shall be governed by the Plaintiff’

3. Conclusion

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