제반사정에 비추어 볼 때 이자지급일에 관한 약정이 있었다고 볼만한 증거 없음[국승]
Seocho 2012west 1350 ( October 13, 2012)
No evidence to deem that there was an agreement on the date of payment of interest in light of all the circumstances
It is difficult to deem that there was an agreement on the date of payment of interest in light of the fact that there was no interest payment as of the last day of each month, and there was no special circumstance to make a new agreement in the absence of any special circumstance to pay interest once every four years, and that the agreement was not submitted as evidence in civil litigation, and that the Plaintiff did not report interest income as of the last day of each month, which is the date of the payment of
2012Guhap30172 global income and revocation of disposition
LAAA
Head of Yongsan Tax Office
May 16, 2013
June 20, 2013
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The Defendant’s disposition of imposing global income tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on October 4, 201 shall be revoked.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 10, 1996, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with ChoBB on December 10, 1996 that with respect to KRW 000,00, the Plaintiff paid 00,000, the sum of the principal and interest of KRW 000,000, plus 1% of the principal and interest on December 12, 1997, and after the due date, the Plaintiff shall pay 1% of the total amount of the principal and interest of KRW 00,00.
B. In accordance with the above arrangement, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 00 on December 5, 1996 to the MediationB, and KRW 000 on December 12, 1996, and KRW 300 on January 9, 1997, and the No.400 on February 12, 1997.
(C) On May 8, 200, the early BB failed to pay the above agreed amount to the Plaintiff on May 8, 200, and on payment of interest at the rate of 25% per annum for the period delayed than the date of the initial payment. In any case, it was prepared and issued by the last day of 2000 a letter that “CC will pay the principal and interest”. “CC, Inc., hereinafter referred to as “CC,” and its name was changed by DD comprehensive Construction, and EE Integrated Construction, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CC”) to the Plaintiff on November 22, 2000.
E. Meanwhile, Article BB: ① On March 2001, 200, and ② on May 31, 2001, and ②.
00 won, and 3. 29. 1. 29. 29. 200 won, and 4. 7. 30 million won, and 5. 12. 5. 2000 won (a total of above amounts of reimbursement 000 won) respectively.
F. On April 28, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit, including loans, with the Seoul Western District Court (hereinafter referred to as "related civil lawsuit") under Gohap on April 28, 2006, as the other party to the lawsuit, including loans, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "CC-related civil lawsuit"), and on March 23, 2007, the Seoul Western District Court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on December 6, 2003 that "The Seoul Western District Court paid 200 won with interest rate of 25% per annum, the agreement between December 5, 2003 and the day of full payment, and the Plaintiff paid 00 won with interest rate of 25% per annum from the date of partial repayment (hereinafter referred to as "200 to the date of full payment"). The Plaintiff applied for the compulsory auction of real estate owned by CC, and the actual owner of CC, and the Plaintiff immediately withdrawn 00,7005 won from the above application for auction (hereinafter referred to as "CC-related civil lawsuit").
G. On October 4, 2011, the Defendant deemed on July 15, 2009, the date the Plaintiff actually received as of July 15, 2009, as the receipt date of the interest income of this case, on the ground that the Plaintiff deemed the interest income of 700 million won (hereinafter “the interest income of this case”) paid fromCC as the interest income for non-business proceeds, and that there was no separate agreement as to the date of payment of interest income of this case, and imposed upon the Plaintiff KRW 00 of the global income tax of 2009 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).
H. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 29, 2012, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on June 13, 2012.
[Based on Recognition] The entry in Gap, 2, 3, 7, and 1 through 5, and the whole purport of the pleading
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion
On November 22, 2000, ChoB prepared a statement of payment (Evidence A No. 4) stating that the Plaintiff shall apply the rate of 25% per annum to the principal once a month and pay interest on the last day of each month. The receipt date of the interest income in this case is the last day of each month, which is the date of payment of interest pursuant to the agreement pursuant to Article 45 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and 000 won which was the receipt date prior to 2005 out of the interest income in this case has expired.
B. Relevant statutes
The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.
C. Determination
Article 16 (1) 11 of the Income Tax Act provides that interest income from non-business loan shall be calculated as interest income, and Article 45 (9) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "the date of interest payment under the agreement shall be the date of payment of interest if no agreement is reached on the date of payment of interest or if interest is paid before the date of payment of interest under the agreement." It is recognized that the following is stated in the first 22th 200 which was prepared by the ChoB. However, according to the above evidence No. 4, the plaintiff shall be calculated as 00 won at the end of each month, and it shall be calculated as 00 won at the 0th 20th 3rd 3rd 20, and it shall be calculated as 00,000 won at the end of each month, and it shall be calculated as 00,000 won at the 0th 30th 20,000.
3. Conclusion
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.