[종합소득세등부과처분취소][공1988.2.15.(818),364]
Criteria for determining whether income from a monetary loan is a profit or business income from a non-business loan;
Whether a monetary lending act constitutes a business under the same Act or business income under Article 20 (1) 8 of the Income Tax Act, which is the profit of non-business loan under Article 17 (1) 10 of the same Act, is determined based on whether a monetary lending act constitutes a business under the same Act. Whether a business falls under a business under the same Act shall be determined in light of social norms, considering all circumstances, such as the profit-making nature, continuity, repetition, the period of the transaction, the length of the transaction, the amount of the loan and the amount of interest.
Article 17 (1) 10, and Article 20 (1) 8 of the Income Tax Act
Supreme Court Decision 83Nu66 Decided September 11, 1984, 85Nu745 Decided July 8, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 86Nu96 Decided May 26, 1987
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1
Head of Yongsan Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu1217 delivered on July 10, 1987
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
The issue of whether income from a lending of money is a non-business loan under Article 17 (1) 10 of the Income Tax Act or a business income under Article 20 (1) 8 of the same Act depends on whether the lending of money constitutes a business under the same Act. The issue of whether a business falls under a business under the business under the same Act shall not be determined entirely by whether or not the external purchaser has professed himself, such as obtaining the approval of the Minister of Finance and Economy or completing the business registration under the Short-Term Finance Business Act, but shall be determined in light of social norms by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the commercial nature, continuity, repetition, repeatness, length of the transaction period, the amount of the loan and the amount of interest, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu96 delivered on May 26, 1987). The decision of the court below is proper in light of the above all the above criteria, and the decision of the court below that the monetary transaction of this case is a business income for the purpose of acquiring interest income rather than a non-business loan.
We cannot accept the conclusion of the judgment of the court below in its independent opinion.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)