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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing global income tax of KRW 00,00,000 (including additional tax), global income tax of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional tax), global income tax of KRW 00,000 for the year 2009, global income tax of KRW 00,000 for the year 2010 (including additional tax), global income tax of KRW 00,000 for the year 2010, global income tax of KRW 00,000 for the year 201 (including additional tax), and global income tax of KRW 0,00,000 for the year 201 shall be revoked.

On September 1, 2014, the Defendant lent money to CCC from 2008 to 2012, and received interest income of KRW 000,000,000,000 (including additional tax of KRW 00,000), global income tax of KRW 00,000 (including additional tax of KRW 00,000,000), global income tax of KRW 00,000 for the year 209, global income tax of KRW 00,000 for the year 2010 (including additional tax of KRW 0,000,000), and each of the disposition of KRW 00,000 for the global income tax of KRW 200,00 for the year 201 (including additional tax of KRW 00,000,00 for the global income tax of KRW 000 for the year 200,00 for the global income tax of KRW 200 (including additional tax of KRW 2000,0000).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant did not apply Article 51 (7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act without considering the plaintiff's outstanding principal (00 million won) and objective reasons for impossibility of recovery.

Article 51 (7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that if all or part of the principal and interest cannot be recovered due to the debtor's bankruptcy, compulsory execution or execution of a punishment or the discontinuation of a business before the determination of the tax base and tax amount is determined, the principal shall be deducted from the recovered amount in advance, and if the recovered amount falls short of the principal, the total amount shall be deemed nonexistent.

However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances, which can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 9 and Eul evidence No. 3, it is difficult to view that the amount recovered by the plaintiff from CCC falls short of the principal, and since it is difficult to view that the claim for 000 million won and its interest is a claim established by the judgment after the disposition of this case, which cannot be collected prior to the date of the disposition of this case, and therefore, Article 51(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is not applicable.

① Around April 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 00 million to the Defendant from 2008 to 2012 as follows; and (b) prepared and submitted a written confirmation to the effect that the Plaintiff received KRW 00 million in principal, interest income, KRW 000,000,000 from the CCC (it is difficult to find special circumstances, such as that the said written confirmation was drafted compulsorily against the Plaintiff’s will, or that it is difficult to use it as evidentiary materials for specific facts due to lack of its content, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002, etc.).

- Contents of certification -

In light of the details of the collection of principal and interest (Evidence A No. 11) submitted by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s outstanding principal and interest exists (the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 00 million to the Plaintiff around March 2013 in the judgment of evidence No. 9). The purport of the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 00 million to the Plaintiff around May 2012, 2013, KRW 00 million in February 2013, and KRW 00 million in March 2013, but there is insufficient evidence to support the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise).

② As of September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the amount in arrears of the CCC as of December 15, 2014 reaches KRW 00 billion, and the amount in arrears of local taxes was KRW 00 billion, which the Plaintiff did not receive from CCC due to the debtor’s bankruptcy, etc. However, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against CCC on November 30, 2014 after the instant disposition and won part of the loan amount on December 4, 2015 (determination of December 25, 2015), and thus, it is difficult to view that the above claim of KRW 00,000,000,00, which the Plaintiff claimed, was a claim arising from a certain cause that was not recovered before September 1, 2014, which was the date of the instant disposition.

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's arguments on different premise cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.