Section 22,409,400 of global income tax for the year 2008, which belongs to the Plaintiff on March 5, 2012

Each disposition and each disposition exceeding KRW 21,385,893 of the imposition disposition of KRW 37,135,988 of the global income tax for the year 2009 shall be revoked (the plaintiff claimed revocation of the imposition disposition of KRW 42,235,100 of the global income tax for the year 2009, but the plaintiff thereafter reduced the purport of the claim concerning that part in the trial after remand).

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

3. Scope of the trial of the political party after remand.

In the first instance court, the Plaintiff’s global income tax for the year 2007 owed to the Plaintiff on March 5, 2012

18,456,390 won, global income tax for the year 2008 22,409,400 won, global income tax for the year 2009

42,235,100 won each disposition was revoked, and the first instance court accepted all of the plaintiff's claims.

C. The Defendant filed an appeal against this, and the trial before the remand was partially accepted by the Defendant’s appeal.

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant against the part of the global income tax of 18,456,390 won belonging to the year 2007.

The Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the cancellation portion is revoked, and the Defendant’s remaining appeal was dismissed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed against each party’s losing part of the judgment prior to remand and filed an appeal. The judgment of remanded the Plaintiff’s appeal and reversed and remanded only the part against the Defendant’s losing part, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of disposition of imposition of global income tax for the year 2007, which is the part against

Meanwhile, after remanding, the Plaintiff: (a) as to global income tax on April 2, 2009 that reverts to the Defendant on April 2, 2015 at the trial after remanding, the Plaintiff: (b) KRW 1,185,205,129; and (c) KRW 887,805,129 among the Plaintiff and its members, May 2010.

19. From December 15, 201 to January 12, 2011, for 297,400,000 won:

5%, 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment shall be paid.

Subject to the reduction and correction disposition on the global income tax for the year 2009, the purport of the claim is above

same reduction was made.

Therefore, the scope of the trial after remand shall be subject to the imposition and reduction of global income tax for the year 2008.

It is limited to the claim for revocation of the global income tax disposition belonging to year 2009.

A. From January 31, 2007 to November 25, 2009, the Plaintiff leased KRW 5,307,400,000 (hereinafter “the instant loan”) over 62 occasions, such as the statement in attached money transaction in attached Table 2, to Dad Securities Asset Management Division. B. From July 6, 2007 to November 17, 2009, the Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 4,805,680,000 in total from 55 times as stated in attached Table 2, as stated in attached Table 2, from 201 to 2014, the Plaintiff filed a suit for loans and fraudulent act with the Daegu District Court as 2010Kahap2255, as stated in attached Table 2, which became final and conclusive on March 3, 2010 to 2015 (hereinafter “the aforementioned Supreme Court Decision 201Da141115, supra. 14, 2011”).

2. With respect to the Daegu-gu LL-dong 1946-3 large 861.5 square meters and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real property”), the sales contract concluded on November 10, 2009 between AA and D shall be revoked.

B. D D shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed on November 27, 2009 by the 126851, which was completed on November 27, 2009, to the Plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims against A are dismissed.

D. Based on the relevant judgment, the Defendant: (a) obtained the Plaintiff’s initial disposition of KRW 841,531,653 (i.e., KRW 154,324,050 in 207 + KRW 347,725,792 in 208 + KRW 339,481,811 in 209; hereinafter “interest income”); (b) on March 5, 2012, 363,86,740 won in total and KRW 67,873,650 in 207 + KRW 156,30 in 209 + the amount of interest income to be reverted to the Plaintiff’s creditors for each of the above disposition of KRW 250 in 200 in 209, 300 in 20, 300 in 20, 207, 360, 207, 2017.

H. Meanwhile, according to the purport of the judgment of remanding on April 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) deemed the Plaintiff’s interest income in May 29, 2009 on the instant loan prior to May 29, 2009 as KRW 49,153,503; (b) corrected the total income tax reverted to year 2009 to KRW 15,750,095; and (c) notified the Plaintiff of the reduction (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

A) On September 14, 2012, the Defendant: (a) notified the Plaintiff of the tax base and tax amount on each interest income accrued in 2007, 2008 and 2009; and (b) thereby, the Plaintiff’s global income tax liability became final and conclusive. However, AA, the obligor of the instant loan, sold the instant real estate, which is one of its sole property, to DD as of November 10, 209; (c) was in excess of its obligation as of November 10, 2009; and (d) was missing as at the end of November 2009; and (e) KK and J was rendered a favorable judgment on May 28, 2010.

Therefore, prior to the Defendant’s aforementioned tax base and correction and notification of tax amount, the instant loan claim occurred. In private law, even if the amount recovered pursuant to the provisions on appropriation of appropriation is first appropriated for interest income under the Income Tax Act, the existence of interest income cannot be discussed regardless of the possibility of collecting the principal claim, which is the source of income accrued. The relevant judgment is merely an application for the Plaintiff’s appropriation of payment of the amount received from AA under law pursuant to Articles 477 and 479 of the Civil Act, and it cannot be deemed as evidence for the Plaintiff’s interest income. From January 31, 2007 to May 2009, the Plaintiff lent the amount of KRW 5,307,400,000 to A and from July 6, 2007 to November 17, 2007 to the Plaintiff’s repayment of the principal amount, and even if the Plaintiff was unable to recover the entire principal amount, the Plaintiff’s exemption of the principal amount could not be deemed as evidence for the Plaintiff’s repayment of the principal.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

B) The Plaintiff’s interest income actually accrued as it preferentially appropriated the principal and interest repaid by AA for the repayment of other obligees’ claims.

Therefore, regarding the amount recognized as being appropriated for interest in the relevant judgment, the Defendant’s disposition that deemed that there was interest income from the Plaintiff, after distributing it in proportion to the amount of each claim by each obligee, including the Plaintiff, according to the ratio of the amount of the Plaintiff’s claim.

2) The defendant's assertion

A) Income tax is, in principle, imposed on the basis of the period and the principle of confirmation of right. Thus, even if a cause for impossibility of recovery occurred, it may not affect the tax liability for interest income already realized prior to the occurrence of the cause for impossibility of recovery. As the Plaintiff was in the state where the cause for impossibility of collection of the instant loan claim was not occurred from the year 2007 to 2009, for which the duty to pay interest income became final and conclusive, even if the cause for impossibility of collection occurred after the occurrence of the cause for impossibility of collection, the instant disposition on the interest income already and specifically realized prior to such occurrence is lawful.

B) The Plaintiff’s loan transaction over 62 occasions should be determined not by a single transaction but by a separate loan transaction. According to the relevant judgment, such as the statement on the satisfaction of obligation as stated in the attached Table 3, since the loan principal and interest are collected from January 31, 2007 to May 29, 2009 and the transaction is completed, there is no room to apply Article 51(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same) to AA is confirmed to have been in a foreign country. Thus, the instant loan claim constitutes “bonds not recoverable due to a debtor’s disappearance, missing, etc.” as of the date of acquisition of interest income or the date of disposition of this case.

In addition, since a fraudulent act revocation lawsuit was pending against the instant real estate at the time, and AA did not become insolvent, the instant loan claim does not constitute “a claim which cannot be recovered due to the debtor’s bankruptcy or compulsory execution, etc.” under Article 55(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act as of the date of acquisition of interest income or the date of disposition of this case.

D) Considering the profit-making nature, continuity, repetition, transaction amount, and transaction period of the Plaintiff’s monetary transaction act, the Plaintiff constitutes a person engaged in the price business regardless of authorization or business registration, and thus, income from the instant loan constitutes business income. In such a case, there is no room for applying Article 51(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Table 1 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) Whether Article 51(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is applied

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 39 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same) provides that "the year to which the total amount of income and necessary expenses of a resident are reverted shall be the year in which the total amount of income and necessary expenses are determined." Article 45 (9) 9-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act delegated by Article 39 (4) of the former Income Tax Act provides that "the time of receipt of profits from non-business shall, in principle, be the date on which the interest is paid pursuant to the agreement," and "where interest is paid without an agreement on the date of payment of interest or before the date of payment of interest pursuant to the agreement, or where interest is paid excluded from the calculation of total income pursuant to Article 51 (7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the date on which the principal is paid shall be the date on which the final return on tax base under Article 70 of the Act or the determination or correction of tax base and amount under Article 80 of the former Enforcement Decree shall be recovered from the whole or part of interest collected from the debtor.

Unlike the Corporate Tax Act, Article 51(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act appears to be a provision to prevent unfair outcome of imposing interest income even though there is no institutional device that can be reflected in the deduction item of interest income even if the amount of loss was incurred later due to the failure to recover the principal for non-business proceeds. The above provision appears to be a provision to prevent unfair outcome. The above provision provides that the entire amount recovered until a certain cause for recovery occurs before the final return on tax base or tax base and tax amount are below the principal amount, and there is no special exception. Whether interest income accrues under the Income Tax Act can be discussed regardless of the possibility of recovering the principal and interest of non-business proceeds from the final return on tax base of the interest income or the amount of tax base and tax base and tax base and tax base and amount of tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du1381, Jun. 28, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 200Du31381, Jun. 23, 2013).

According to the above evidence and evidence No. 3, the plaintiff's interest income accrued from 207.1 to 25.1, the defendant's disposal of the loan 200,000 won were 60,000 won and 7.10,000 won were 80,000 won and 20,000 won were 10,000 won and 20,000 won were 10,000 won and 20,000 won were 10,000 won and 20,000 won were 10,000 won and 20,000 won were 10,000 won and 7,00 won were 5,00 won and 7,00 won were 10,00 won were 5,00 won and 7,00 won were 5,00 won were 20,00 won and 9,000 won were 7,00 won were 15,00

Therefore, the disposition of this case that recognized the amount equivalent to the plaintiff's interest income ratio as the plaintiff's interest income after distributing the interest income of this case to each creditor, including the plaintiff, according to the ratio of each claim amount, is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

3) Sub-decisions

A) Creditors, including the Plaintiff, obtained interest income as much as the portion appropriated for the interest among the amount paid by AA in 2008. Among such amount, 64,355,430 won, which is the amount divided in proportion to the amount of the Plaintiff’s credit, shall be deemed as the Plaintiff’s interest income subject to global income tax, and the Defendant’s disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2008 by imposing global income tax for the Plaintiff 22,409,400 won for the year 2008 is legitimate. Furthermore, according to the result of the above appropriation of performance, the Plaintiff’s disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2008 by paying the interest income amount for each of the loans prior to May 29, 2009 by dividing the amount of interest income to the Plaintiff and other creditors in proportion to the amount of each credit amount, and the Plaintiff’s disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2009 by 15,750,503 won for the year 2009.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case reduced in the trial after the remand is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance which has different conclusions is unfair, so the defendant's appeal is accepted and the judgment of first instance is accepted.

the part against the Defendant regarding the imposition of global income tax for the remaining 2008 and 2009

The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

(c)