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

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 12, 1 through 3, 10, 10, and 10, and 10, respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

A. On April 24, 2003, CCTV Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Co., Ltd”) established on behalf of the Plaintiff and Non-Party DD, KimE, KimF, KimF, NaGG, HamK, HamK, HamM, EN, etc. (hereinafter “Non-Party Co., Ltd.”) acquired KRW 1.45 billion through auction on the land of this case, where the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff made an investment of KRW 1.6 billion in total from nine persons, including the Plaintiff and Non-Party DD, KimE, KimF, GaF, HamK, HamM, and EN, and acquired KRW 1.65 billion in total on the land of this case (hereinafter “the land of this case”). In this regard, on February 2, 2004, the Plaintiff agreed to additionally set up a maximum debt amount of KRW 50 million on the land of this case, which is part of the acquisition price of the land of this case, and received KRW 1.75 billion.5 billion.2 billion.

B. Meanwhile, on March 5, 2004, the non-party company paid to the Plaintiff the principal amount of KRW 250 million and the interest rate of KRW 20 million. At the time, the non-party company included the above details of the loan and repayment in the cash receipt book of the non-party company.

C. After that, on July 24, 2006, the non-party company transferred the instant land to m&C Co., Ltd. with the price of KRW 2 billion, but without receiving the above purchase price, transferred the collateral security obligation, etc. against the plaintiff et al., which was established on the instant land under the condition that m&C is borne by m&C. On April 20, 2007, the Korea National Housing Corporation that acquired the instant land from m&C Co., Ltd. was settled by the method of paying the amount of KRW 390 million including the interest amount to the mortgagee of the instant land, including the plaintiff et al., and as a result, the plaintiff, who established the collateral security amount of KRW 700 million with the maximum debt amount, was paid by the Korea National Housing Corporation.

D. The head of Mapo Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on the land transfer of this case with respect to the non-party company, and notified the defendant of taxation data by regarding the amount of money invested by the plaintiff et al. in the non-party company as interest income. The defendant considered 700 million won, which was received by the plaintiff, as interest income of the plaintiff, the amount of KRW 400 million less the amount of KRW 300 million appropriated as the amount invested by the plaintiff in the account book of the non-party company, as well as the business income 2,472,200, which the plaintiff was omitted while running the real estate brokerage business, and added these amount to the amount of the plaintiff's global income on March 1, 2009 (hereinafter "the disposition of this case").

E. The plaintiff appealed and filed an objection on April 23, 2009 and the tax appeal on July 23, 2009, but all the above objection and the appeal were dismissed.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the ground that, in addition to the amount of KRW 30 million that he invested in the non-party company, the amount of KRW 60 million as of May 31, 2004 was additionally KRW 200 million as of August 10, 2004, and the total amount of investment KRW 560 million as of August 10, 2004. The plaintiff's interest income is KRW 140 million after deducting KRW 560 million investment from the amount of KRW 700 million paid to the plaintiff by the Korea National Housing Corporation. However, the plaintiff's interest income is not KRW 140 million after the deduction of KRW 560 million as to the amount of investment from the company's books, the defendant recognized only KRW 30 million as the investment amount, and the remaining KRW 260 million as to the land of this case as the investment amount by the Korea National Housing Corporation (=700 million - KRW 300 million).

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) The Defendant imposed the difference by deeming the amount invested in the non-party company as KRW 300 million on the Plaintiff’s non-party company at KRW 700 million paid to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the amount invested in the non-party company was KRW 560 million. Thus, the issue of this case is whether the Plaintiff’s investment in the non-party company was 30 million recognized by the Defendant, and whether the Plaintiff’s assertion was 560 million.

(2) 원고가 소외 회사에 이 사건 처분 당시 인정된 투자금 3억 원 이외에도 추가로 2억 6,000만 원을 투자하였다는 원고의 주장에 부합하는 증거로는 갑 제3호증의 2, 갑 제5호증, 갑 제6호증의 각 기재, 증인 이QQ의 증언이 있지만, 한편 갑 제4호증, 갑 제7호증 내지 갑 제11호증, 갑 제13호증 내지 갑 제15호증, 을 제4호증 내지 을 제9호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재, 이 법원의 천안 TT동 우체국, 천안우체국, 주식회사 RR은행, 천안 SS동우체국 등에 대한 금융거래자료 제출명령 회신결과, 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들에 비추어 보면, 이를 그대로 믿을 수 없고 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거도 없다.

(가) 2004. 5. 31. 작성된 6,000만 원의 차용증(갑 제3호증의 2)과 2억 원 투자 확인서(갑 제5호증)는 소외 회사 명의로 작성된 것이지만 실제로는 이QQ이 작성하여 원고에게 교부한 것이고, 원고도 위 투자금을 소외 회사의 대표이사나 소외 회사의 계좌에 입금처리한 것이 아니라 이QQ에게 교부하였다는 것이다. 그러나 소외 회사는 김FF이 2004. 2. 16. 대표이사로 취임하였고, 2004. 7. 8.부터는 위 김FF과 이QQ의 처인 권AA이 소외 회사의 공동 대표이사를 맡게 되었으므로, 위 차용증 및 투자 확인서 작성 당시에 이QQ은 소외 회사의 대표이사가 아니었으므로 위와 같은 문서를 작성할 권한이 있었다고 보기 어렵고, 소외 회사를 위하여 금원을 차용하거나 투자받을 위치에 있었던 것도 아니다(증인 이QQ의 증언에 의하더라도 당시 대표이사 김기진은 소외 회사가 원고로부터 금원을 차용하여 지상권자나 유치권자들에게 변제하는 것에 반대하였다는 것이다).

(B) The plaintiff invested KRW 50 million in the non-party company at the time of acquiring the land of this case, but thereafter paid KRW 250 million to the non-party company on March 5, 2004. The money transaction between the plaintiff and the non-party company was entered in the non-party company's book as it is. After that, there was no further entry in the non-party company's book about KRW 60 million as of May 31, 2004 and KRW 200 million as of August 10, 2004.

(C) In relation to the Defendant’s disposition of this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff and SongB jointly invested KRW 560 million in the initial pre-assessment review and tax assessment process, and that the Plaintiff paid KRW 240 million out of the investment recovery amount of KRW 700 million to SongB, and that the Plaintiff incurred income of KRW 140 million in the Plaintiff. However, in this case, the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of money from the account under the name of the Plaintiff and SongB, and made an investment of KRW 550 million in the non-party company, but again, made an investment of KRW 260 million in the amount of KRW 20 million in the non-party company.

(라) 원고가 소외 회사에 3억 원 외에 추가로 투자하였다는 2억 6,000만 원과 관련된 금융거래내역을 살펴보면, ① 공동투자자로 주장하였던 송BB 명의의 계좌에서 출금된 위 2004. 8. 10.자 1억 원의 인출금은 소외 회사에 입금되었다고 볼 만한 자료가 없을 뿐만 아니라 그 최종 귀속자를 확인할 수 없고, ② 원고 명의의 계좌에서 인출된 2004. 8. 10.자 1억 원은, 같은 날 금 4,300만 원이 소외 회사의 공동 대표이사인 권AA에게 지급되고, 같은 날 2,100만 원이 투자자인 원고에게 곧바로 반환되고, 2004. 8. 13. 금 3,000만 원이 송BB에게 각 입금되었으며 ③ 송BB 명의의 계좌에서 2004. 5. 31. 인출된 6,000만 원에 대하여는, 그 중에서 3,100만 원이 수표로 출금되어 소외 회사의 감사이자 위 권AA의 남편인 이QQ에게 건너가 이QQ이 배서하여 사용하였고, 나머지 2,900만 원에 대하여는 그 사용처가 명확하지 않다. 이와 같이 원고 또는 송BB 명의 예금계좌에서 출금된 금원은 아래 표에서 보는 바와 같이 상당한 액수가 그 귀속을 확인할 수 없거나, 투자자인 원고 또는 송BB에게 곧바로 다시 입금되었고, 나머지는 이QQ이나 권AA에게 전달되었음이 확인되는바, 실제로 위 차용증이나 추가투자확인서의 기재 금원들이 소외 회사로 입금되어 사용되었음을 인정할 아무런 자료가 없다(이 부분과 관련하여 증인 이QQ은 대표이사 가수금 반제나 소외 회사에 대하여 주장된 유치권을 해결하기 위해서 사용되었다고 증언하고 있으나, 추가 투자금 2억 6,000만 원 중 1억 3,000만 원 이상이 사용처가 불분명하고, 소외 회사의 회계장부에 추가 투자금의 입ㆍ출금이 전혀 기재되어 있지 않을 뿐만 아니라 대표이사 가수금에 대한 기재도 없어서 이러한 증언을 그대로 믿기 어렵다).

(E) Meanwhile, when the non-party company calculates the amount calculated on the account book as the investment amount of investors, such as the plaintiff, and the return (%) on the amount paid by the Korea National Housing Corporation to each investor, the return on investors other than the plaintiff is about 103% or 150%. The return on the plaintiff's investment amount is about 130% if the plaintiff's investment amount is assumed to be KRW 300 million, and the return on the investment amount is over 25% if the plaintiff invested in the amount of KRW 560 million as alleged by the plaintiff. Thus, it is difficult to understand that the plaintiff invested in the amount of damage more than the other investors.

(3) 따라서 원고가 소외 회사에 3억 원 이외에 추가로 2억 6,000만 원을 투자하여 합계 5억 6,000만 원을 투자하였다는 원고의 주장은 이를 받아들일 수 없다. 오히려 앞에서 본 여러 사정을 종합하면 가사 원고의 주장처럼 원고가 이QQ으로부터 원고 회사 명의의 차용증이나 추가 투자확인서를 교부받고 2억 6.000만 원을 추가로 이QQ에게 교부한 바가 있더라도, 앞에서 본 바와 같이 위 돈들이 소외 회사의 장부에 계상되거나 소외 회사의 계좌에 입금된 사실이 없을 뿐만 아니라 원고 및 송BB의 계좌에서 인출된 즉시 이QQ이나 그의 처인 권AA, 그리고 원고 및 이BB 등에게 곧바로 귀속되거나 반환된 점 등에 비추어 보면, 이는 소외 회사와 사이에 이루어진 금전거래라고 인정하기는 어렵고, 단지 이QQ과의 원고 사이에 이루어진 개인적인 금전거래로 보는 것이 타당하다.

(4) Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant imposed global income tax on the non-party company by deeming the Plaintiff’s investment amount to be KRW 300 million, which is the difference with KRW 700 million paid as the consideration, as a profit from the non-business loan, is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court below.