All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport.

A. On July 29, 201, the Defendant: (a) leased KRW 160,00,000 to B; (b) received reimbursement of KRW 708,542,031 (i.e., KRW 708,542,031 (i., KRW 708,542,031 - KRW 160,000,000; hereinafter “instant income”); (c) obtained interest income of the Plaintiff; and (d) thereby constitutes a non-business interest under Article 16 (1) 12 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10900, Jul. 25, 201; hereinafter the same). The Defendant imposed a disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 225,121,350 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. After that, at the trial, the defendant changed the reason that the income of this case from the business partnership relationship with B, a partnership under the Civil Act, was received as a distribution of the profit, and it constitutes a dividend income under Article 17 (1) 9 of the Income Tax Act (the income similar to the income under subparagraphs 1 through 7 of the same Article, in which the value of the money and other property acquired by the investor due to withdrawal exceeds the amount required for the investor to acquire the investment).

(On the other hand, interest income and dividend income are classified as global income subject to cumulative taxation under the Income Tax Act, and the tax base is the same as necessary expenses in calculating the income. Thus, even if the grounds for the disposition of this case are changed, the global income tax amount for the year 2009 of the Plaintiff after the change is identical to the tax amount of the disposition of this case originally imposed after the change (the grounds for recognition). [In the absence of dispute], Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 won as the party concerned invested a total of KRW 160,000,000 without any specific consideration agreement to B, which was one of the parties' assertion, in Incheon.