Article 45 (Receipt Date of Interests)

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

가. 원고는 2004. 12. 13. 평소 알고 지내던 소외 한○인의 중개로 소외 김☆씨에게 1,500,000,000원을 대여하기로 하고, 이 대여금 중 3개월분 선이자 135,000,000원을 공제한 나머지 1,350,000,000원을 김☆씨에게 지급하였다. 원고는 2004. 12. 23. 다시 김 □□에게 450,000,000원을 대여하면서 5개월분 선이자 67,500,000원을 공제한 나머지 382,500,000원을 지급하였다(이하, 원고가 김☆씨에게 대여한 총 1,950,000,000원을 '이 사건 대여금'이라 한다).

B. The Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s global income tax amount of KRW 474,975,357 in 2004 by including the Plaintiff’s total income amount of KRW 202,50,000 (hereinafter “the instant advance interest”) in total income in 2004, and determined the amount of the said advance interest as KRW 32,551,910 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not report and pay the income tax amount on the amount equivalent to the said advance interest in addition to the amount of the said tax, KRW 507,527,267 on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not report and pay the said amount of the income tax, and notified the Plaintiff of additional payment of KRW 105,40,80,00, the difference between the global income tax amount of KRW 402,117,360 in global income tax in 204 and the said amount of the said advance interest (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the disposition is lawful or not; 2. Whether the disposition is lawful

(a)the master of the plaintiff;

원고는 이 사건 선이자를 원금과 함께 만기에 받기로 하였는데, 김☆씨가 원금 중 765,000,000원만을 변제하고 나머지 원금과 선이자는 변제하지 아니하였다. 그러므로 원고가 받지 못한 선이자에 대해 소득세를 부과한 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 16 (Interest Income)

Article 45 (Receipt Date of Interests)

C. Determination

1) Article 16(1)12 of the Income Tax Act provides that profits from non-business loans shall be interest income. Article 45 Subparag. 9-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the date of receipt of profits from non-business loans shall be the date of payment of interest under the agreement. However, where there is no agreement on the date of payment of interest or the date of payment of interest is paid before the date of payment of interest under the agreement, the date of

On the other hand, if the creditor pays the remainder after deducting interest from the prior interest while lending money to the debtor, and the debtor pays the principal including interest at maturity, the receipt date of interest shall be the agreed date if there is an agreement on the repayment date of the principal, and if there is no agreement, it shall be interpreted as the actual repayment date of the original amount. The reason is that Article 14(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes applies the provisions on the calculation of tax base under the tax law regardless of the name or form of the transaction, and the time when the creditor actually receives the amount of interest from the debtor is not the time when the prior interest is deducted, but the time when the creditor receives the full repayment of the loan including the prior interest.

그런데 원고가 김☆씨에게 이 사건 대여금을 지급하면서 이 사건 선이자를 공제 한 사실, 김☆씨는 이 사건 대여금의 원금에 선이자를 포함시켜 함께 상환하기로 하였는데 원고와 김☆씨가 사건 대여금 채무의 변제기를 약정하지는 아니한 사실, 김☆씨는 2004년이 종료할 때까지는 이 사건 대여금 채무를 변제하지 아니하였고, 2005. 8. 4. 한 수인을 통해 이 사건 대여금 중 765,000,000원만을 변제한 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같거나 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없다. 그렇다면, 이 사건 선이자의 지급일 약정은 없었고 2004년이 종료할 때까지 이 사건 선이자가 실제로 지급되지도 아니하였으므로, 이 사건 선이자를 원고의 2004년 이자소득이라고 할 수 없다. 따라서 피고가 이 사건 선이자를 원고의 2004년 종합소득세액 과세표준에 산입한 것은 위법하다.

2) The Plaintiff’s global income tax base for the year 2004 calculated by the Defendant illegally adding the instant preliminary interest of KRW 202,50,000 to the Plaintiff’s global income tax base for KRW 1,351,875,993 (the Plaintiff’s global income tax base for KRW 1,149,375,993 (the Plaintiff’s global income tax base for KRW 1,351,875,93-202,50,000). The tax base for the global income tax for the year 204 calculated by applying the tax rate under Article 55(1) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7319, Dec. 31, 204) is KRW 402,075,357 + [17,100,000 + [1,375,939,939-800]

Inasmuch as the calculated tax amount is less than KRW 402,117,360 of the tax amount that the Plaintiff paid, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have declared below the amount of income that should have been reported in relation to global income tax in 2004 or paid below the amount of tax that should have been paid. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s failure to report and pay penalty tax imposed on the Plaintiff is also unlawful.

Ultimately, since the global income tax amount to be paid by the plaintiff in 2004 is the amount of 402,075,357 won, and the amount of 402,117,360 won is less than the amount of 402,117,360 won paid by the plaintiff, the disposition of additional payment of transfer income tax is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Since the plaintiff's claim is well-grounded, it is so decided as identical to the order.