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

A. On October 19, 2009, the Plaintiff received KRW 960,000,000,00, excluding partial amount of money transferred from BB to other mortgagees at the request of the purchaser, who representing the purchaser who acquired the said land, as the representative of the mortgagee’s right to collateral security on the same land as 22-1 land and 14-1 land. The Plaintiff received KRW 960,00,000,000, excluding the amount of money partially transferred to other mortgagees at the price of cancellation or transfer at the request of the purchaser.

B. On August 5, 2013, the Defendant decided that KRW 960,00,00 received by the Plaintiff as other income and notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of KRW 457,836,910 of global income tax in 2009. However, the Plaintiff issued an order to re-examine the Plaintiff’s claim for pre-assessment review on August 27, 2013, and the National Tax Examination Committee issued an order to identify the subject to whom the said money reverts on September 26, 2013.

C. As a result of reinvestigation, the Defendant deemed that the remainder of KRW 174,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant payment”) excluding the amount remitted toCC or its family members among the above KRW 960,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant payment”) was ultimately reverted to the Plaintiff. The Defendant determined this as other income and imposed global income tax KRW 75,259,970 on January 2, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the request for examination to the National Tax Service, but was dismissed on April 28, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

50,000,000 won invested by the Plaintiff in ○○ Private Teaching Institute Co., Ltd.

Of the interests, the portion not paid out of the interest constitutes interest income, and KRW 138,00,000 among them constitutes interest income, and even though it cannot be taxed with the exclusion period of national tax, the instant disposition based on the premise that the said money is other income is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) From May 1997 to December 2004, D, EE, andCC 3 leased 5,773m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) at ○○ Private Teaching Institutes Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Private Teaching Institutes”) and operated the said private teaching institute as a major shareholder and joint representative director of ○○ Private Teaching Institutes Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Private Teaching Institutes”). Since around early 2001, when the instant land, which is the site of the private teaching institute, was designated as a housing site development zone, FF,G, H, II, H, J, K, L, L, and M tried to sell the instant land to a third party, and the ○ Private Teaching Institutes planned to purchase the instant land and then transfer it by means of re-sale.

2) In the process, on November 15, 2001, the Plaintiff prepared an investment agreement on the condition that “the Plaintiff will pay KRW 1,000,000,000,000, including 500,000,000,000, which is individually invested by ○○ Private Teaching Institutes in purchasing the instant land, to the ○○ Private Teaching Institutes. The Plaintiff shall prepare an investment agreement with the Plaintiff on the condition that ○ Private Teaching Institutes purchase the said private teaching institute site as loaned by ○○ Private Teaching Institutes as security, with the amount loaned by ○ Private Teaching Institutes to the Plaintiff by ○ Private Teaching Institutes (hereinafter “instant investment agreement”).

3) On December 31, 2001, 14 percent of the instant land from F, etc.

B. On January 7, 2002, the remainder of 77/91 of the land in this case is the sum of the purchase price.

After purchasing KRW 12,00,000 in sequential order, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of ○○ Private Teaching Institute on January 14, 2002 and March 15 of the same year. The instant land was expropriated in KRW 21,287,415,33 of the expropriation compensation through consultation on February 14, 2004.

4) On the other hand, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land fromCC after purchasing it.

A promissory note of KRW 1,00,000 was delivered. Of 1,000, 000, 000, 0000 Do ○○○○○○, 039 square meters, the share of KRW 1/3,939 square meters and 350 percent with respect to the share of KRW 1,30,000,000 for the maximum debt amount on April 2, 2002, 1, the establishment of the right to collateral security (NN), NN, and the Plaintiff, but terminated on September 19, 202, 200, the right to collateral security (the Plaintiff) was established on April 14, 200, and terminated on September 6, 2005, 300, the right to collateral security (the right to collateral security) was established on the land of KRW 1,300,000,000,000, 200,000 for the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff).

5) 그런데 2009. 5. 25. 이 사건 근저당권의 목적물인 ○○시 ○○동 ○○번지 잡종지 8,939㎡ 중 CC의 1/3 지분 및 9,260분의 350 지분 등이 임의경매로 BB 등에게 매각되었고, 그 매각대금이 선순위 근저당권자인 주식회사 ○○은행에 배당된 결과 위부동산의 후순위 근저당권자들인 원고, PP, QQ, RR 등은 자신들의 근저당권부 채권을 변제받지 못하였다. 이에 원고를 비롯한 후순위 근저당권자들은 물상대위권에 기하여 선순위 근저당권자인 주식회사 ○○은행의 공동근저당권이 설정되어 있던 ○○시 ○○동 ○○번지 잡종지 1,360㎡ 및 같은 동 산14-1 임야 954㎡에 마쳐진 근저당권에 관하여 각 법정대위를 원인으로 하여 자신들의 대위채권 범위 내에서 이전받았다.

6) On October 16, 2009, the Plaintiff drafted a letter of commitment to receive KRW 1,750,000,000 in return for cancellation or transfer as desired by the purchaser of the said land, as the representative of the mortgagee’s right to collateral security of the said land, 22-1 land, and 14-1 land in mountain 14-1 land, which is the same as the land of ○○○○○○ Dong, ○○○○○○○○, as the representative of the purchaser of the said land.

7) 원고는 2009. 10. 19. BB으로부터 1,750,000,000원을 지급받은 후 2009. 10.28. ○○시 ○○동 22-1 토지, 같은 동 산14-1 토지의 근저당권자인 RR에게 51,012,460원, PP에게 500,000,000원, QQ에게 238,987,540원을 각 송금하였다.

8) On April 5, 2011, the Plaintiff, a creditor of the ○○ Private Teaching Institute andCC, concluded the instant investment agreement with the Plaintiff in collusion with the Plaintiff and set up the instant right to collateral security, and subsequently, filed a lawsuit to the effect that “the Plaintiff would return damages or unjust enrichment arising from the tort,” as the Plaintiff’s property was concealed by means of receiving KRW 1,750,00,000 in return for the cancellation of the right to collateral security from BB, which was the third acquisitor. The first instance court dismissed the said claim on the grounds that the instant investment agreement cannot be deemed to be false, on the grounds that the instant investment agreement cannot be deemed to be false. The lower court also dismissed the appeal based on the aforementioned determination and dismissal by the Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na3023,000,000,000,000 won.

9) According to the reply submitted by the Plaintiff on August 12, 2011 in the course of the said lawsuit, “the Plaintiff” as toCC due to the fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the instant investment agreement (acquisition of the instant land by ○○ Driving Schools).

The investment agreement amounting to KRW 1,00,000 has been secured, and to secure this, the process of establishing and cancelling the right to collateral security was repeated in the land owned byCC and its wife, the instant land, etc. In order to cancel the right to collateral security on the instant land. The amount of KRW 500,000,000, which was not paid to an individual’s own investment in the instant land, was fully recovered from the said investment to be directly remitted from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on September 6, 2005.

10) D and EE, the representative director of ○○ Driving Schools, was present in the above lawsuit and borrowed money to “the Plaintiff, etc. to purchase the instant land as a witness and paid interest on the second half of each month.” According to the Plaintiff’s account records, the Plaintiff’s money that the Plaintiff received from ○○ Driving Schools, other than the investment principal, is KRW 3,758,065, and KRW 5,000,000 on February 28, 2002.

11) In a debt investigation conducted by the Defendant around July 2013, the Plaintiff submitted a written opinion stating that “100,000,000 won for the character of the instant payment is the money in the name of the remainder of the claim to be received fromCC for a long period of time and the investment profit preservation expense for ○○ Private Teaching Institutes, and KRW 70,00,000 is the name of the investment bonus, and ultimately, the amount to be maintained byCC’s property and the nature of the honorarium for managing money in the future.” On the said money, the Plaintiff may manage the honorarium or the one’s money in the future to comply with it from a third party.

① The letter of payment dated February 19, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “the letter of payment in this case”).

If the ○○ Private Teaching Institute receives compensation for the instant land from the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on February 24, 2004 with the Plaintiff’s cooperation (e.g., cancellation of the right to collateral security in the Plaintiff’s name), 125,00,000 won (i.e., the agreement shall be 2%, and the actual payment shall be 1%), based on the rate of 1% per annum 500,000 (the agreement shall be 50,000,000 x 1% x 25 months) of the total amount of interest paid by the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the instant land that was not paid to the Plaintiff during that period, and if it fails to pay the said money by February 24, 2004, the interest calculated at the rate of 6% per annum

(2) A written agreement dated July 30, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "instant agreement")

The Plaintiff, based on the instant investment agreement, shall waive the claim for merit payment of KRW 1,00,000 against the obligorCC and shall be exempted from the said obligation. If the Plaintiff was paid or apportioned the said claim of KRW 1,00,000,000 against the obligorCC, the Plaintiff shall be jointly and severally guaranteed the claim for principal and interest of KRW 170,000,000 borrowed from the said date by the husband and wife and the remainder after deducting KRW 170,000,000 from the outstanding monetary transaction betweenCC and the Plaintiff. Such agreement is not to be externally known. The Plaintiff submitted a confirmation letter to the effect that the amount actually paid to the Plaintiff out of the merit payment based on the instant investment agreement is KRW 70,000,000.

12) Major documents submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant during the process of examining the legality of taxation prior to the instant disposition

Details are as follows:

13) After re-audit, the Plaintiff received as a result of confirming the details of the Plaintiff’s account transactions.

Of 960,00,000 won, the amount finally reverted to the plaintiff, except for the amount remitted to creditors, family members, etc. ofCC, is KRW 174,00,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] The above mentioned evidence, Gap's 5 through 7, 10 through 16, 18, 19, Eul's 5 through 7 (including the pertinent numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Article 16(1) of the Income Tax Act provides that interest income shall accrue during the pertinent year from any of the following income:

Article 21 (1) of the Income Tax Act provides that "other income shall be defined as follows: "The income from interest income, dividend income, real estate rental income, business income, labor income, pension income, retirement income, and income, other than income, shall be defined as any of the following: "The other income shall be defined as "the income from interest income, dividend income, real estate rental income, business income, labor income, pension income, retirement income, and capital gains" and "the honorarium" in subparagraph 17 refers to the money and valuables paid as the meaning of a case in connection with administrative affairs or the provision of services, and the determination of whether it is applicable shall be made by comprehensively considering the motive and purpose of receiving the relevant money, relationship with the other party, amount, etc." (2) In this case, whether the payment of this case received by the Plaintiff constitutes interest income.

In light of the relationship between the Plaintiff andCC, which is recognized as the overall purport of the above facts and arguments, details of transactions, existence of related agreements, etc., the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that “170,000,000 won incurred from old monetary transactions betweenCC and the Plaintiff as interest bonds under the instant agreement,” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Rather, the Plaintiff testified to the effect that ○○○ Private School Co-representative D and EE paid all the interest agreed upon to the Plaintiff, i.e., ① if 0% of the 20% interest agreement exists, around February 24, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for a separate payment of compensation when ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was paid for the instant non-payment of 10% interest bonds, and the Plaintiff did not claim that the aforementioned non-payment of 0% interest bonds was made within the period of 0% interest payment.

In light of the fact that: (a) the Plaintiff paid or stored forCC; (b) it is contrary to the allegations made by the Plaintiff in the relevant civil procedure; (c) the Plaintiff appears to have actually delivered the remainder other than the instant payment toCC; and (d) in the course of the tax investigation conducted by the Defendant around July 2013, it is reasonable to deem that the instant payment was received as a case of arranging the instant financial relationship as above and keeping the property ofCC. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff received the instant payment as a case of arranging the instant financial relationship and keeping the property ofCC. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the premise that the instant payment is interest income is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

public official law, order of law,

/ Income Tax Act

Article 16 (Interest Income)

(1) Interest income shall be the following income, generated in the relevant taxable period:

11. Profits accruing from a non-business loan.

12. Income similar to those under subparagraphs 1 through 11, in the nature of the price following any use of money.

Article 21 (Other Incomes)

(1) Other income shall be any of the following incomes, other than interest income, dividend income, business income, labor income, annuity income, retirement income, and capital gains:

17. An honorarium;

(1) The former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23588, Feb. 2, 2012)

Article 45 (Receipt Date of Interests)

The receipt date of interest income shall be the following dates:

9-2. The date of payment of interest pursuant to the agreement on non-business profits: Provided, That in cases where no agreement is made on the date of payment of interest, or interest is paid before the date of payment of interest pursuant to the agreement, or interest excluded from the calculation of gross income pursuant to Article 51 (7) is paid, it shall be

Article 50 (Receipt Date of Other Incomes)

(1) The receipt date of other income shall be any of the following dates:

1. The date of the liquidation of the price of other incomes under Article 21 (1) 7 of the Act (excluding other incomes where assets or rights are leased), the date on which assets are delivered, or the date on which assets are used or profit-making: Provided, That where assets are delivered or used and profit-making before the price is settled but the price is not determined, it shall be the date on which the price is paid;

2. The date when the accounts of other income under Article 21 (1) 20 of the Act are settled in the relevant business year of the corporation;

3. The receipt date of other incomes, other than those in subparagraphs 1 and 2.

【National Tax Basic Act

Article 26-2 (Period for Excluding Assessment of National Taxes)

(1) No national tax may be levied after the period prescribed in the following subparagraphs expires: Provided, That where a mutual agreement procedure is in progress in accordance with the treaty for the prevention of double taxation (hereinafter referred to as "tax treaty"), Article 25 of the Adjustment of International Taxes Act shall apply:

2. If a taxpayer fails to file a tax base return by the statutory due date of return, it shall be seven years from the date on which the national tax is assessable.