2. The global income tax on August 5, 2012 that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties on August 5, 2012

The imposition of the OO(including additional duties) exceeding the OO's won shall be revoked.

3. The plaintiff (Appointed)'s remaining claims are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, 4/5 are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the remainder are assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

OO(including additional duties) and OO(including additional duties) on August 5, 2012, 2005 (including additional duties) are revoked (the "2004.8.5" and the "O) on the date of the disposition of global income tax imposition in 2004 shall be written in writing).

A. ParkA (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") died on February 5, 2009, and the plaintiff (designated parties; hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") is the wife of the deceased, and the designated parties are the children of the deceased (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff, etc.").

B. From July 21, 2011 to September 23, 2011, the Director of the Regional Tax Office of ○○○ (the Director of the Regional Tax Office)

In carrying out a tax investigation of the Food company Samx(hereinafter referred to as the "P"), and confirmed that "after borrowing money from the deceased, 2004 won, 000 won in 2005, and 000 won in 2006, the interest rate was paid to the deceased," and notified the Defendant of the taxation data.

C. Accordingly, the defendant shall determine the comprehensive income tax on the deceased by making the above interest as business income.

After that, pursuant to Article 24 (1) and (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, May 7, 2012, 2004

On May 16, 2012, the notice of tax payment was served on the Plaintiff, etc. on May 16, 2012. In addition, on August 5, 2012, the Defendant issued a revised notice of global income tax of 000 won (including additional tax) and global income tax of 000 won (including additional tax) in 2005 and global income tax of 2008.

D. The Plaintiff et al. appealed on September 24, 2012, but filed an objection on November 29, 2012.

Upon receipt of a decision of dismissal from a regional tax office. Plaintiff et al. requested a trial on February 15, 2013, but received a decision of dismissal from the Tax Tribunal on November 21, 2013.

E. Since then, the Defendant revoked KRW 7,716,027 of the global income tax in 2004 and KRW 000 of the global income tax in 2008 (the global income tax in 2004 became KRW 000).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, 8, 17 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 22 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

As the Plaintiff et al. filed an objection on September 14, 2012 after the lapse of 90 days from May 16, 2012 after receiving a tax payment notice of global income tax in 2004, the Plaintiff et al.’s claim for revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax in 2004 is unlawful as the filing time limit and the filing period.

B. Determination

(1) A lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition of national tax shall be filed through a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes (Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes), and an objection may be filed prior to a request for examination or adjudgment (Article 55(3)), except where the disposition is to be investigated, determined, or dealt with, or should have been conducted by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service (Article 6(2)), and where an objection is filed prior to a request for examination or adjudgment, such objection shall be filed within 90 days after the date (where a notice of disposition is received, after the date of receipt) on which

As seen above, the Plaintiff et al. received a global income tax payment notice in May 16, 2012, and filed an objection on September 24, 2012, 2012, which was after the 90th anniversary of the imposition of global income tax in 2004. As such, an objection against the imposition of global income tax in 2004 is unlawful as the Do filing period.

(2) As to this, the Plaintiff et al. was merely a notification for the exercise of rights to the Do and prevent the exclusion period for taxation. The actual taxation disposition is after the pre-assessment review was determined. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23758, Aug. 8, 2012>

5. The assertion that it was lawful, since it was conducted together with the global income tax assessment in 2005.

A pre-assessment review can be challenged against a notice or notice of tax assessment result so that it can be challenged, and a person who has received a written notice or notice of tax assessment result may request a pre-assessment review to the head of a tax office or the director of a regional tax office within 30 days from the date of receipt of such notice (Article 81-15(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). However, if the period from the date of notification and notice of tax assessment result to the expiration date of the exclusion period of national tax assessment is less than 3 months, a request for pre-assessment review is not allowed (Article 81-15(2)3).

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements No. 5-3, No. 19, and No. 22-1 through No. 8, the Defendant filed a prior notice of the imposition of global income tax against the deceased with the Plaintiff, etc. on April 6, 2012, and the Plaintiff, etc. filed a prior notice of the imposition of global income tax on the deceased on May 14, 2012.

The Defendant may recognize the fact that the exclusion period of imposition of global income tax in 2004 was until May 31, 2012 (the exclusion period of imposition of global income tax shall be seven years from June 1, 2005, which was the initial date of the exclusion period of imposition of global income tax). The Defendant issued a tax payment notice of global income tax in 2004 on the ground that “from June 1, 2005, which was the initial date of the exclusion period of imposition of global income tax, seven years from the exclusion period of imposition of global income tax”. Thus, it is apparent that the period from April 6, 2012, which was the prior notice of imposition, to May 31, 2012, which was the expiration date of the exclusion period of imposition of global income tax, is less than three months. Thus, a request for pre-taxation review of global income tax in 2004 is not allowed. Moreover, the Defendant’s imposition of global income tax in 2004 cannot be deemed unlawful or actually tax assessment.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the following circumstances, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(1) The Defendant recognized the deceased’s interest income on the basis of ParkB and Sam XX account books, but:

Books, etc. may be different from the actual entry of the facts, interest, etc. made under ParkB and 3 XX

Go, ParkB and Sam XX shall pay the deceased as interest to receive reduction or exemption benefits in the course of the tax investigation.

According to the facts alleged that ParkBB and 3 XX original market division, since interest income is divided into interest and pre-payment fees, it is recognized that only interest income can be recognized, even if the interest income is recognized, it is recognized that 3% prior to July 7, 2004, 4% prior to and after October 14, 2005, 200,000 won prior to and after October 19, 2005, and 2% prior to and after October 19, 2005, and 200,000 won (O image) are divided into interest and pre-payment fees. Thus, considering the records of ParkB and 306, the deceased’s interest income cannot be recognized based on the account books of ParkB and 300,000 won, even if written, it can be recognized as the deceased’s interest income.

(2) The Deceased did not engage in a credit business, and ParkB and Sam XX entrusted by the Deceased, etc.

Since a share purchase and sale has been made, interest income or business income cannot be recognized.

(3) Since the Deceased obtained profits through stock investment, and did not receive interest income through credit business, the exclusion period of imposition is not 7 years but 5 years.

(4) The Plaintiff et al. received qualified acceptance, and the deceased’s death benefit of KRW 000 is the Plaintiff et al.’s proprietary property. As such, the scope of succession to tax liability to be borne under Article 24(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes should be limited to KRW 00,00 (=the value of the inherited property recognized by the Defendant’s recognition -00 won).

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The details of interest paid by ParkB and Samx to the Deceased are as follows (hereinafter “the interest income of the Deceased in 2005”).

(2) On January 1, 2006, the Defendant: (a) considered the interest that the Deceased received from 2002 and 3003, as a non-business profit; and (b) imposed global income tax of 000 won on the Deceased in 2002 and global income tax of 000 won in 2003. On February 5, 2009, the Defendant conducted an inheritance tax investigation after the Deceased’s death; and (c) determined that “the Deceased was engaged in credit business based on the following circumstances.”

(A) The Director of the Regional Tax Office of 000 won, May 4, 2007, 2007, and 2007.

6. On September 30, 2007, 13.13.00 won and September 30, 2007, 200 million won acquired 00,000 shares of Korea's shares at Korea." It received a copy of the cashier's check received from the deceased, the details of passbooks, the statement of obligation security, and the statement of collateral substitution.

(B) The written confirmation of the incident by the chief of the OO police station on the death of the deceased stated that “the defense contractor is a credit service provider that engages in counter-commercial credit business, such as OF, in building located in Jung-gu, Seoul.”

(C) A civil petition that the Plaintiff submitted to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office requesting a re-investigation into the deceased’s death, stating that “the deceased secured a stock against the company for 10 years. In the case of a funeral loan after a funeral, the deceased provided a security loan to the company. There was a loan certificate and a cash storageO hundred million won to the person who carried on the same business.”

(라) 망인의 사망 후 XX, XX, XX, XX이 원고 등을 상대로 "망인의 채무를 변제하라."는 소를 제기하였는데, 각 소장에는 "망인은 사채업을 하면서 돈을 빌렸다.", "망인은 특별한 직장 없이 증권을 거래하고 자금을 대부하는 일에 푹 빠져 있다는 소문을 들었다.", "주식거래 및 자금 대부차 자신이 출입하던 서울 중구 명동1가호 창문을 통하여 바닥으로 추락하였다."고 기재되어 있다.

(E) ParkB prepared a book on the details of borrowing money from the Deceased, etc.; and

The books include creditors, amounts of loans, details of payment of interest, details of repayment of loans, business name of re-loans, etc.

(3) On September 22, 2011, ParkB prepared a written confirmation to the public official in charge of the ○○○ Regional Tax Office stating that “A person himself/herself, as a representative director of the tri XX, has borrowed money and received interest as specified in the following subparagraphs, and that he/she has paid interest to the prior owner of the loan.”

(4) Related litigation

(A) On August 1, 2011, the Defendant leased O won to XX on September 19, 2007 by the deceased.

On February 18, 2008, he received KRW 0 million as the interest, and the interest was the business income of the deceased." On the ground that the interest was the business income of the deceased, he imposed the global income taxO on the plaintiff et al. in 2008.

The Plaintiff et al. appealed and tried on August 9, 201, but received a decision of dismissal from the Tax Tribunal on February 27, 2012. The Plaintiff et al. filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of global income tax against the Defendant with the Seoul Administrative Court in 2008. On January 24, 2013, the said court did not have objective financial data to confirm that the amount paid as the purchase price of shares was the deceased’s money, and there is no evidence to prove that the payment of interest, such as the reversal of the statement made by XX, was made by the Seoul High Court on July 3, 2013. The said judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

(B) On January 10, 2011, the Defendant lent money to the deceased Co., Ltd., Ltd. in 2007

The interest of KRW 000 and KRW 000 in 2008 is the interest income, and the above interest is the interest income." On January 10, 201, the Plaintiff, etc. imposed global income tax OO on the Plaintiff, etc. in 2007 and global income tax OOO in 2008.

On February 27, 2012, the Plaintiff et al. appealed and filed a request for a trial, and on February 27, 2012, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that “the net is a full interest income by re-auditing whether the amount received from the net Fund is a interest income, and revising the tax base

Accordingly, the defendant reduced the total income tax on April 24, 2012 to the OO members in 2007.

The Plaintiff et al. filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of global income tax in 2007 and 2008 with the Seoul Administrative Court. On June 13, 2013, the above court rendered a judgment that “(2007 and 2008) revoke the imposition of global income tax in 2008.” Thereafter, the Defendant revoked the imposition of global income tax in 2008 upon the recommendation of the Seoul High Court on June 16, 2014.

(5) The interest that the deceased received from ParkB and Sam XX in 2005 is indicated in [Attachment 2].

(6) On June 15, 2009, the Plaintiff et al. received a decision to accept a qualified acceptance report on the inheritance of the deceased’s property from the Seoul Family Court (2009 OOO).

(7) The details of the deceased’s inherited property, and the details of death benefit and cancellation refund received by the Plaintiff, etc., are as follows:

[Ground of recognition] Nos. 4, 6, 9 through 15, 20 (including paper numbers), 7, 9 through 12, 20

(including serial number) each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) As to the existence of interest income, business income, and the period of exclusion

(A) Whether a monetary lending act constitutes a business under the Income Tax Act, and whether a monetary lending act constitutes a type of income from interest; and

The issue of whether a business falls under a business under the Income Tax Act shall be determined in light of social norms, taking into consideration all the circumstances, such as the profit-making nature, continuity, and repetition of the pertinent monetary transaction act, the length of the transaction period, the amount of lease and the amount of interest, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du14505, Aug. 19, 2005

(B) The instant case is a health team, and ① the Deceased has several times from 2004 to 2006.

Dudly lending funds to ParkB and Sam XX, and lending to ParkB in the course of transactions.

the interest received from 100 won, 000 won, 100 won, 200 won and 3 XX

In light of the fact that 00 won is a significant amount of 00 won, ② the document of providing debt security, the content of the letter of provision of collateral substitution, and the company name and number of shares recorded in the books of ParkB preparation, ParkB and ParkB lending from creditors, including the deceased, to an enterprise requiring funds, and there is no evidence to prove that the creditors had any occupation other than cash lending, and that there is no evidence to prove that there was any job other than cash lending to the deceased. ③ The proof of the incident of the preparation of the head of the OB police station, ③ the proof of the complaint of the Plaintiff’s preparation, the complaint of the Plaintiff’s preparation, the document of complaint of the OB police station, the document of collection, collection, and document of ParkBB preparation, etc. are known as a company-oriented loan business operator, ④ the decision was revoked, but the above decision was rejected by the Seoul Administrative Court on global income in light of the receipt issued by the fund to the deceased and the number of shares received by the deceased, and the remaining amount can not be considered as a legitimate one that the parties received the entire tax amount of this case.

(C) On this point, the plaintiff et al. asserted that "the interest payment amount of 3% prior to July 7, 2004 and 00,000 won prior to the date of July 7, 2004, 4% prior to the date of October 14, 2005, and 2% prior to the date of October 19, 2005 and the interest payment amount of 200,000 won prior to the date of October 19, 2005 shall be excluded because it overlaps with the interest payment amount of 204, 2004, 205, and 2006, respectively." However, the plaintiff et al.'s assertion that the interest payment amount of 2004, 2005, and 2006, which was received in each corresponding year, merely because the loan items were written in duplicate in each year, cannot be seen as being combined with the interest payment period.

In addition, the plaintiff et al. asserted five years of exclusion period of imposition on the ground that "it does not constitute a neglect of obligation to report interest income to a credit service provider because it temporarily lends funds according to friendship relations, not to engage in credit business," but the interest income of this case constitutes business income

(2) Whether Article 24(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes constitutes "property acquired by inheritance"

(A) According to Article 24(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, an heir (including testamentary donee) or an administrator of inherited property under Article 1053 of the Civil Act shall be liable to pay national taxes, surcharges, and expenses for disposition on default imposed or payable by the ancestor to the ancestor within the extent of the inherited property.

Meanwhile, Article 8(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) provides that an insurance proceeds of life insurance or non-life insurance received due to the death of the inheritee, which are received by the inheritee, shall be deemed as substantially identical to the acquisition of property by inheritance or testamentary gift, and shall be subject to taxation of inheritance tax in order to prevent artificial avoidance of inheritance tax and realize the principle of tax equity and substantial taxation. However, in the case of insurance proceeds under Article 8 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the right to claim the payment of insurance proceeds held by

Article 8 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act also applies to insurance money stipulated under Article 24 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

Property acquired by inheritance under Paragraph 1 is not included (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du1041 decided May 23, 2013).

(B) Therefore, the exclusion period for imposition of five years is asserted on the ground that the Plaintiff et al. temporarily lent funds to the Plaintiff et al. as a beneficiary due to pro-friendly relationship, rather than engaging in credit business. However, the instant interest income falls under the business income and the instant interest income falls under the business income, and the allegation by the Plaintiff et al. is groundless.

(2) Whether Article 24(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes constitutes "property acquired by inheritance"

(A) According to Article 24(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, an heir (including testamentary donee) or an administrator of inherited property under Article 1053 of the Civil Act shall be liable to pay national taxes, surcharges, and expenses for disposition on default imposed or payable by the ancestor to the ancestor within the extent of the inherited property.

Meanwhile, the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010);

According to Article 8(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, insurance money for life or non-life insurance received due to the death of the inheritee, which is substantially identical to the acquisition of property by an insurance contract that the inheritee becomes the policyholder by inheritance or testamentary gift, and thus, is subject to inheritance tax in order to prevent artificial avoidance of inheritance tax and realize the principle of substantial taxation. However, in the case of insurance money under Article 8 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the beneficiary’s right to claim the payment of insurance money is not the original inherited property but the heir’s proprietary property. Thus, insurance money under Article 8 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act does not include “property inherited” under Article 24(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du1041, May 23, 201

(B) Therefore, since the Plaintiff et al.’s insurance proceeds received from the deceased’s death as a beneficiary falls under the inherent property of the Plaintiff et al., it cannot be included in “property inherited” under Article 24(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. On the other hand, since the Plaintiff et al.’s termination refund refund upon the death of the deceased succeeded to the status of the deceased’s policyholder after the death, it constitutes inherited property (00 won of the insurance proceeds received from school life-related life-related life-related life was the Plaintiff’s contractor and the premium payer was not identified, and the payment of the insurance proceeds received from the same father’s fire was not revealed at any time as of the time of the death of the deceased’s death, and thus, it is excluded from the inherited property).

Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts that “where the policyholder and the insured are different, the amount equivalent to the premium paid by the decedent is inherited property if the policyholder dies before the occurrence of an insured event,” based on the National Tax Service’s established rules, the insurance premium ought to be deemed inherited property. However, according to the National Tax Service’s established rules (see, e.g., Property Tax-418, November 22, 2012), if an heir files a return of inheritance tax with the value of inherited property upon termination and termination of the relevant insurance contract after the commencement of inheritance, the amount equivalent to the refund upon termination of the inheritance is assessed as inherited property. Article 24(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that an heir succeeds to the amount equivalent to the refund upon termination of the insurance contract. Article 24(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that an heir succeeds to the amount of tax liability, such as national taxes, etc. of the decedent’s national taxes, etc., within the scope of inherited property. However, it is reasonable to consider the amount of the refund upon termination of the insurance contract as a general termination.

(C) Meanwhile, Article 11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22038, Feb. 18, 2010) provides that “property acquired by inheritance” under Article 24(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be calculated by the formula of “total amount of assets acquired by inheritance - (total amount of debts + inheritance tax imposed or payable by inheritance)” so, the Plaintiff, etc. received by inheritance.

'san' is as follows:

On the other hand, the global income tax in 2004 is an OO(including additional taxes) and an OO(including additional taxes) in 2005, and the aggregate amount of the inherited property is larger than the total amount of inherited property. In this regard, there is no separate provision under the Framework Act on National Taxes, but the defendant is in the status of creditor; the defendant is in the status of creditor; the content of tax obligations cannot be determined arbitrarily by the parties; the tax obligations are legal relations under public law; the tax obligations are legal relations under public law; and the priority and the right of self-performance are recognized in the tax claims based on the characteristics of public interest and public nature (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da11848, Dec. 14, 2007).

Therefore, the Plaintiff et al. succeeds to the global income tax liability within the scope of KRW 000 of global income tax in 2004 and KRW 000 of global income tax in 2005.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the part of the lawsuit of this case concerning the revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax in 2004 is unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax in 2005 is dismissed.

For reasons, this shall be accepted, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as they are without merit. It is so ordered.

The decision shall be rendered as above.