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

A. As a result of conducting a tax investigation on Park 00 as to June 10, 200 to December 16, 2009, the commissioner of the Central Regional Tax Office confirmed that Park 00 deposited 00 bank accounts (Account Number: 1002-xxxxx; hereinafter referred to as “instant account”) in the Plaintiff’s name with special interest related to deposits of 00 mutual savings banks (hereinafter referred to as “0 mutual savings banks”) and notified the Defendant of the tax data related to interest income (non-business loans) of the Plaintiff.

B. On March 16, 2015, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff acquired the said KRW 528,00,000 as interest income based on the foregoing taxation data, and notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax amounting to KRW 264,030,560 for the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the first disposition”).

C. However, on May 27, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed against the Defendant on May 27, 2015. The Defendant: (a) deemed KRW 462,00,000, which was confirmed to have been deposited in the Park 00 account out of KRW 528,00,000, as interest income of KRW 66,000; (b) on the other hand, the remainder of KRW 66,00,000 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant money”) still deemed as interest income of the Plaintiff; and (c) subsequently corrected only KRW 237,33,200 in the initial disposition (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal on September 1, 2015, but was dismissed on January 25, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 2

Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) The representative director of the 00 mutual savings bank proposed that 00 mutual savings bank's 00 mutual savings bank's 00 mutual savings bank's 00 mutual savings bank's 00s continuous loan, etc. reduces the amount of funds held by the above savings bank due to the reduction of the amount of funds held by the above savings bank, and requested 00 bank to keep deposits from the bond holders who have difficulty in normal operation of the above savings bank and make a decision to secure the liquidity of funds and mediate for the bank's 00. Accordingly, 00 mutual savings bank's 00 bank's 00 mutual savings bank's 00 mutual savings bank paid additional interest other than formal interest.

2) around 200, Park 00 deposited the instant account in the Plaintiff’s name designated by Park 009 with special interest related to the deposit of 00 mutual savings banks. The said money was withdrawn in cash or by check at the bank’s counter within a number of days from the deposit day or the deposit day.

3) The Director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: 00 bank account (Account Number: 1002-xx-xxxxxxx), out of 528,00,000 won deposited in the instant account as a result of conducting a tax investigation on 00 January 31, 2012;

462,000,000 which is confirmed to have been deposited as 102-xxxxx only 462,00,000 won:

On May 1, 2012, 200, 200 won of global income tax of 209,833,870 was corrected and notified as special interest related to deposit of 00 mutual savings banks. At the time of the above investigation, 200 was prepared and submitted to the Seoul Regional Tax Office a written confirmation that " Park 00 received 462,00,000 won of special interest in 209 by transferring money to the Plaintiff when the principal deposits to 00 mutual savings banks."

4) In the process of filing an objection against the Plaintiff’s initial disposition, Park 00 prepared and submitted a written confirmation stating that the Defendant deposited a deposit in the name of 00 mutual savings bank in the Plaintiff’s name and did not deposit the deposit in the Plaintiff’s name, and that the instant account is the principal himself/herself who actually reverts to the money deposited in the said account as a borrowed account, and that the entire amount of KRW 528,000,000, including the instant money, is the interest income attributed to the principal.

5) Meanwhile, Park 00 stated in the 00 District Public Prosecutor's Office that, at the time of being investigated under the suspicion of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, "0 mutual savings banks" and bond business entities, such as Park 00, have mediated and mediated the attraction of deposits, but the plaintiff did not have mediated and mediated the attraction of deposits, but the plaintiff is aware that it was directly traded with the representative director of 00 mutual savings banks."

6) In addition to the above KRW 462,00,000, the sum of KRW 44,000,000 deposited from the instant account is 00 another 00 bank account (Account Number: 1002-xx-xxxxx) or 00 (Account Number: 1002-xx-xxxxxxxxx) of 00 (Account Number: 1002-xx-xxxxxxxxxxx).

7) As a result of the prosecutor's investigation of the case on special interest related to deposit of 00 mutual savings banks, the Plaintiff did not have any criminal admission since it is merely the title holder of the instant account (it does not include the Plaintiff in the list of total 80 holders of bonds, etc. that the 00 District Prosecutors' Office sent to the National Tax Service by the 00 Mutual Savings Bank that received special interest from the 00 Mutual Savings Bank), and Park 00 was charged for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (an unfair act related to savings) by deeming that the special interest deposited to the instant account is the actual owner of the special interest, and the said sentence was finalized after being sentenced to a fine

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 7 to 17, Eul evidence 7 to 10

Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

B. Determination

According to the prosecutor's investigation records and results revealed in the above facts, according to 00 statements and the statement on the flow of funds deposited by 00, which had arranged bonds companies, etc. to transfer special interest to 00 mutual savings banks, the Plaintiff appears to have been the actual owner of the interest related to the deposit of 00 mutual savings banks, which was merely the nominal holder of the instant account and 00 bank deposited to the instant account. Furthermore, even according to the prosecutor's statement at 00, the Plaintiff's direct transaction with 00 mutual savings banks is not the transfer to 00 mutual savings banks. Thus, the amount deposited to the instant account is the special interest paid to 00 and the special interest to 00 bank does not belong to the Plaintiff. In addition, the Defendant asserted that the money deposited from the instant account was reverted to the Plaintiff, the holder of the instant account, on the ground that there was no evidence to verify the fact that the money deposited to the account was deposited in 000,000, and thus, it does not have any effect on the judgment that the money was actually reverted after 000.

Therefore, it is difficult to view the instant money as interest income attributed to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s assertion pointing this out is with merit.

C. Sub-committee

The instant disposition is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

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