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

Cheong-gu Office

On June 1, 2012, the Defendant revoked the imposition of the global income tax OOO(including additional OOOO) for the Plaintiff on June 1, 2012.

A. The plaintiff's lending of money and tax investigation result

1) The Plaintiff agreed to lend money to a third party through a branchB and receive interest from a third party. If the Plaintiff deposits money to a branchB, the branchB lent it to a third party, but the collateral, such as a collateral, was established in the name of the Plaintiff, and the fee was paid by a third party, and repaid the principal and interest to the Plaintiff.

2) During the investigation into the branchB, the Seoul Regional Tax Office confirmed that the Plaintiff acquired a non-business profit from 2005 to 2010 through the branchB, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data as shown in [Attachment 1].

Table 2 see Court Decision 2

The Seoul Regional Tax Office confirmed the right to collateral security and provisional registration established in the name of the plaintiff on the real estate of the debtor, determined the principal by multiplying the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security by a certain ratio, calculated the estimated income by the interest rate not later than the cancellation date of each registration with the amount of provisional seizure as principal, and calculated the amount of interest within the estimated income amount with the confirmation of the maximum DD belonging to CCC, a representative of

3) Of the non-business proceeds accrued in 2009, with respect to the debtor HanE, the real estate owned by the debtor HanE under the name of the plaintiff was subject to the establishment of a collateral security or provisional registration as follows, and the estimated principal and interest based on the registration are as follows:

Principal

Establishment Date

Date of Cancellation

Maximum Amount

Estimated Principal

Interest Rate

Number of days

Amount equivalent to interest

OOdong 343-56

O

May 16, 2008

September 30, 2010

O

O

2.0

867

O

OOdong 343-37

O

August 21, 2008

December 31, 2009

O

O

2.0

497

O

OOdong 343-37

O

August 29, 2008

December 31, 2009

O

O

2.0

489

O

(b) Imposition of global income tax;

"1) On April 14, 201, the Defendant: (a) filed a written confirmation with the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “written confirmation of July 7, 201”); (b) the Plaintiff filed an objection in relation to the global income tax for the year 2009; and (c) the Plaintiff filed a written determination of dismissal on the tax base for the year 2005 and the year 2007; and (c) the Plaintiff was subject to the Seoul Tax Tribunal’s determination of dismissal on the grounds that the payment of interest was not made on July 7, 201 (hereinafter referred to as the “written determination of July 7, 201”). Based on the written confirmation, the Defendant, based on the written confirmation, revoked the assessment of global income tax for the year 2009, on the global income tax for the year 2009; and (d) the Plaintiff filed an appeal against each global income tax for the imposition of global income for the year 2005 and 2007.

4) The Plaintiff dissatisfied with this and filed an appeal (2013Nu2220). However, on January 8, 2014, the Plaintiff was determined to dismiss the appeal by the said court, and the appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2014Du4337) is currently pending.

(c) Imposition of global income tax for the year 2009.

(1) around February 7, 2012, Korea EE filed a false written confirmation with the Defendant. The Defendant conducted a partial investigation with respect to the Plaintiff from March 27, 2012 to April 13, 2012. Korea EE was limited to the confirmation of July 7, 2011, which was drawn up by NAB, on the part investigation process, by a private person on July 7, 201, which was a 343-56 building in the construction process, and had been subject to a tax audit by the Plaintiff, without any reason beyond 343-56 building in the construction process. The Defendant submitted 2000,000 won to the Plaintiff including 200,000,000 won and 100,000 won and 20,000,000 won and 20,000 won and 30,000,000 won and 20,000 won.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 10, 15, 17 through 19, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On October 10, 2008, the Plaintiff was not paid KRW OO(O-O-O-OOO) on November 3, 2008 through the OB bank account (O-O-O-OOO-OO-OO-OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O). DoB also stated that there was no interest paid to the Plaintiff during the police and prosecutor's investigation process. Korea-B also stated that there was little interest paid to the Plaintiff during the police and prosecutor's investigation process. Korea-E is difficult to believe that the Defendant filed a civil lawsuit against the Plaintiff. In addition, the instant disposition was unlawful for the Defendant’s loaned KRW O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form. The entry in the relevant statutes is as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

"1) Korea EE was performing a new construction work of an apartment on the ground of the land of 343-37,343-56, OO-gu OO-gu OE (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case") and collected money from the plaintiff, etc. through NAB, 2) Korea EE was borrowed from the plaintiff on May 16, 2008 through NAB, and transferred only KRW OOOOOB to the plaintiff after deducting the interest. On May 22, 2008, the provisional registration of 4/13 of the provisional registration in the name of NAB established on the land of this case was completed in addition to the provisional registration before the plaintiff.

3) On August 21, 2008, KE borrowed additional OOOE from the Plaintiff through a branchB on August 21, 2008, and completed the joint establishment registration of an OOO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-

4) On August 29, 2008, HanE borrowed OE from the FF, the Plaintiff’s private village, through the branchB, from the FF, and in the nearest FF, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the instant apartment site 201, which is the maximum amount of OO, was completed. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff paid the maximum FF one-half interest related to OE.

5) On July 22, 2010, Korea EE concluded a sales contract with creditors, including the Plaintiff, to sell the instant land and the instant ground apartment to the OOOE to the creditors on July 22, 2010.

6) On November 3, 2010, creditors, including the Plaintiff, entered into a joint business agreement to jointly sell or lease the instant apartment after construction, and the share in the business and profit distribution ratio is the same as the share in the existing provisional registration, but the additional principal of the Plaintiff (OOOOO and Maximum FOOOOOO on August 21, 2008) shall be distributed first to each person after the sale, and the remaining amount shall be distributed in accordance with the shares in the business, and the business shall be carried out after the joint receipt of the business registration certificate. On November 8, 2010, the Plaintiff, etc. changed the owner of the instant apartment from Korea-E to the Plaintiff, etc., and completed the business registration as HH’s trade name.

"7) Korea EE filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment (Seoul Southern District Court 201Kahap13068) against creditors, including the Plaintiff, for the reason that creditors received excessive principal of the loan in the process of selling the apartment in this case and in excess of the interest limit rate under the Interest Limitation Act. On October 24, 2013, the claim was partly accepted with the purport that the interest interest portion from the above court is without merit, and only some of the grounds are reasonable in relation to the industrial accident insurance premium that the creditors agreed to accept." (8) The Plaintiff traded with the branch bank account in the name of the Plaintiff (OO-O-O-O-O-OOOOOOOOOOOOO). In addition, the transaction is continued such as receiving OOO won in total from the branch bank account under the name of the Plaintiff through OB in 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 12, 13, and 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings is determined.

Article 16(1)12 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that "interest accruing from non-business loans" as interest income. The term "interest accruing from non-business loans" refers to interest paid by a person who does not engage in lending money temporarily or objectively (see Article 26(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010). Article 80(1) and the main sentence of Article 80(3) provides that "Where a person who is obligated to file a final return on the tax base fails to do so, the head of a regional tax office or the head of a regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall determine the tax base of the relevant resident for the relevant year and, in such case, it shall be based on account books or other documentary evidence, or where it is impossible to calculate the amount of income by the account books or other documentary evidence, it can be acknowledged as follows."

① The Plaintiff did not register as a credit service provider, and did not report and pay the interest income from the loan, and did not retain evidentiary documents, such as account books stating the details of interest income or interest rates related to the loan. Although there exists no financial transaction details between the Plaintiff and the branchB, loans to E out of the relevant transaction details cannot be specified, and the Plaintiff cannot determine the Plaintiff’s interest income through the details of the financial transaction because the transaction details between the Plaintiff and the branchB, such as transactions with the branchB, are not submitted in addition to the OB bank account. In calculating the tax base, it falls under the absence of necessary account books and evidentiary documents in calculating the tax base or where the important part is incomplete or false.

② The branchB also failed to submit related data, such as interest income and necessary expenses related thereto, and it seems that taxation was made according to the results of the estimation.

③ After the branchB lending money to the obligor after receiving the money from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff repaid the remainder remaining after deducting one’s fee. The Defendant estimated the interest within the scope of the provisional registration and the maximum debt amount established on the real estate, and decided the amount of interest received within the scope of presumption, based on the confirmation by the branchB within the scope of presumption. In the process of absence of specific data, the determination process is reasonable as the interest received at least within the scope of presumption.

④ Although the principal leased to Korea EE is confirmed, the details of the interest cannot be confirmed during the lawsuit between the Plaintiff and Korea EE. The instant disposition is not based on the confirmation of Korea EE.

2) In relation to the OOO on August 29, 2008, the interest of the FF loaned to Korea EE through a branchB, whether it can be seen as the Plaintiff’s income.

In light of the following circumstances revealed in the above facts, the MF lent money to the branchB through the plaintiff, and the MF appears to have lent money to the plaintiff and the plaintiff lent money to the E through the branchB. However, although the MF was the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff actually acted as a creditor between E and E, such as the plaintiff's business registration during the settlement process, the most FF-related money was adjusted to be loaned to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff also paid interest to the MF, it is reasonable to deem that the POOOO on August 29, 2008 also lent money to Korea through the branchB and received interest from the plaintiff. < Amended by Act No. 857, Aug. 29, 2008>

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.