Article 14 (Real Taxation under the former Framework Act on National Taxes)

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

Cheong-gu Office

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Defendant’s each disposition of imposition of KRW 1,475,068,320 against the Plaintiff on November 12, 2012, including global income tax of KRW 1,475,068,320, global income tax of KRW 1,678,519,740 for the year 209, global income tax of KRW 255,03,240 for the year 2010, shall be revoked.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition or dismissal of the first instance judgment as follows, and the addition of the judgment as to the second instance judgment, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning for the first instance judgment. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ Part 8 of the first instance judgment (cash storage certificate and certificate of personal seal impression) No. 2, followed:

Gap evidence 27 1 through 68 (Apopa Address Inquiry Details), Gap evidence 28-1 through 24 (Apopa Address Inquiry Details), Gap evidence 29 (Apopa inquiry into facts)

000 ...................................

It is difficult for the plaintiff's spouse, Kim**'s name * each ASEAN address inquiry details, which is the details of access to the securities company's account via the Internet, and the inquiry inquiry inquiry inquiry is consistent with the plaintiff's departure period (the ASEAN address that was connected to the above account on the date from December 3, 2009 to December 4, 2009 is not verified overseas out of the date on which the plaintiff was indicated as the overseas connection date). Thus, it is difficult to recognize that the actual account price of the above account was not the plaintiff or Kim* because there was the details of access to the above account solely on the ground that there was the details of access from the above account.

○ The last page of the 8th judgment of the first instance court shall be amended by inserting the following:

(3) The judgment of the court below in light of the above legal principles and evidence duly adopted by the court below. (4) The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act. (4) The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The assertion

1) The Plaintiff lent money to Company***(hereinafter referred to as “MM”) and received interest. The loan for consumption between the Plaintiff and the metal has to be legally null and void and thus its interest has to be returned. In addition, the Plaintiff returned interest KRW 4,887,36,100 to ** metal, and ** KRW 6.3 billion in total, by offsetting interest that had not been received from metal, returned KRW 1.3 billion in total.

2) The Plaintiff suffered losses for which the principal amount of KRW 1.3 billion was not repaid in 2010, which should be deducted as necessary expenses for business income under Article 55(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, such as loss from appraisal of assets, etc. In addition, if the recovered amount cannot be recovered in whole or in part pursuant to Article 51(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22580, Dec. 29, 2010; hereinafter the same) and the recovered amount is below the principal, the total determined amount of tax in 2010 shall be zero won.

3) The Plaintiff did not report without filing a tax return or without filing a tax evasion for the purpose of tax evasion by actively committing an unlawful act, and thus, the additional tax rate for the simple under-reported return should be applied, not the additional tax rate

4) Since there was no national tax payment deadline designated by a tax payment notice or payment notice, the Plaintiff

No additional payment on the basis of the payment deadline may be levied on the person.

B. Determination

1) As to the first argument

A) Whether a certain income constitutes an income subject to imposition should be determined based on the economic aspect, and it can be determined that there is a means to control and manage the profit in reality, and that there is a means to have a means to pay the income, and the legal assessment of the causal relationship that has been derived from such income does not necessarily necessarily have to be lawful and effective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Nu123, May 28, 1985; 95Nu758, Nov. 10, 1995; 95Nu758, etc.). Meanwhile, even if a tax liability is established upon fulfilling the taxation requirements of illegal income control and management, even if the possibility of loss of economic profit inherent in such unlawful income as confiscation or collection is realized after the occurrence of a subsequent cause, and thus becomes final and conclusive, barring any special circumstances, a taxpayer may seek revocation of the tax liability based on Article 25-1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 10405, Dec. 27, 2010).

B) On February 24, 2012, which can be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of arguments in the evidence Nos. 2 through 4, 20 through 26 (including spot numbers if there are spot numbers), Nos. 1 and 25, the following circumstances, namely, ① Metal filed a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff on February 24, 2012, immediately after the commencement of the tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, with Seoul Central District Court 2012Gahap15232, and on October 11, 2012, *MM has guaranteed the obligation to the Plaintiff of the Republic of Korea, and repaid the loan to the Plaintiff of the Republic of Korea without the approval procedure of the board of directors. The monetary loan contract between the Plaintiff and *** because the Plaintiff becomes null and void, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff only 7.64,840 million won of interest received from metal, but only the above judgment against the Plaintiff was null and void *1 million won of the judgment against the Plaintiff*.25 billion won of the judgment against the above.

(2)***** There is no objective evidence to acknowledge that the money deposited in metal was paid to the Plaintiff***, there is no objective evidence to acknowledge that the money deposited in metal was paid to the Plaintiff, ③ there is no objective evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was paid the principal amount of KRW 1.3 billion, or the Plaintiff and** There is no evidence to prove that metal was set off the principal amount of KRW 1.3 billion.3 billion, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is difficult to deem that the possibility of loss of economic benefits from illegal income has been realized, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

2) As to the second argument

In calculating business income, bad debt amount corresponding to necessary expenses (it cannot be deemed as loss from evaluation of assets for which the plaintiff has not received principal) is classified into cases where the relevant claim has not been legally extinguished and where the relevant claim has not been legally extinguished in light of the debtor's asset status, payment ability, etc., and where the financial perception that it is impossible to recover the existence of assets has been made. "Claims which cannot be recovered due to the debtor's bankruptcy, compulsory execution, execution, or discontinuation of the business" under Article 5 (2) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and "bonds which cannot be recovered due to the debtor's death, disappearance, missing, missing, etc." under Article 5 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the former cannot be recovered as bad debt amount. Thus, since the former cannot be recovered as a matter of course, the latter person's credit itself exists, and thus, it cannot be found that it is impossible to recover part of the amount of bad debt or to recover it from necessary expenses for the relevant taxable year (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012016Du14,2716).

3) As to the third argument

Article 47-2 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that penalty taxes shall be imposed on the tax base without filing a report by improper means prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 27 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22572, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that the preparation of double-entry books, etc., false certification or false documents (Article 1), receipt of false certification (Article 2), destruction of books and records (Article 3), concealment of assets (Article 47-4), concealment of assets, fabrication or concealment of income, profit-making, transactions (Article 5) and other unlawful means (Article 6) are determined by unjust methods.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in evidence Nos. 16, 2 through 4, 15, and 22, the plaintiff was engaged in credit business and did not register credit business, **, *, *, * the maximum*, * by lending cash loan contract under the name of the plaintiff or the plaintiff's spouse, and ** by taking cashier's checks and depositing cashier's checks into the account of the plaintiff or the plaintiff's spouse, and the above income was not reported at all by the preliminary return or final return of global income tax on the above income. The plaintiff's act is not merely a non-report of income, but it constitutes an active act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes by preparing false documents or concealing income, profit, act, or transaction, and constitutes a case where the plaintiff's tax base is not reported in an unjust manner under Article 47-2 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4) As to the fourth argument

Article 47-5(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that an additional tax shall be added in cases where a taxpayer fails to pay a national tax within the due date for payment under the tax-related Acts or the amount of tax paid falls short of the payable amount. In addition, according to Articles 70(1) and 76(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10408, Dec. 27, 2010), a resident with global income shall file a return on the global income tax base from May 1 to 31 of the year following the corresponding year, and pay an amount calculated by deducting the amount of tax reduced or exempted and the amount of tax credit from the calculated global income tax by the due date. According to the relevant provisions, the Plaintiff shall file a comprehensive and tax return by May 31 of the year following the corresponding year under the Income Tax Act, but as seen earlier, the Plaintiff has failed to pay the global income tax by adding an additional tax for unfaithful payment. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.