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

The Defendant’s imposition of the global income tax for the Plaintiff on April 5, 2012 and the imposition of the global income tax for the year 2006 and the global income tax for the year 2008 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

On April 5, 2012, the Defendant revoked the imposition of the global income tax OOO for the Plaintiff on April 5, 2012.

In the first instance court on April 5, 2012, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the imposition of OOOOO of global income tax for the year 2006, and the imposition of OOOOO of global income tax for the year 2008, and the first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on global income tax for the year 2006, and the first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on global income tax for the year 2008.

The judgment of the court of first instance was appealed only by the plaintiff, and the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the imposition of global income tax OOO in 208.

2. Global income tax:

The reasons why this part should be explained are as follows: "1........... are the same as the part of "the details of the disposition" in Chapters 6 through 3, 14, and this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the imposition of global income tax for the year 2008 is unlawful.

(1) A claim that BB donated to the Plaintiff on November 7, 2005 is not a monetary claim, but a right to real estate property right, that is, a right to ownership transfer registration under a sale and purchase promise, and thus, there is no objection thereto. Therefore, since the Plaintiff’s payment in 2008 should be appropriated for the principal leased to CCC, the imposition of global income tax for the year 2008 prior to the other premise is unlawful.

(2) Since BB already imposed gift tax on the Plaintiff on the right to claim for ownership transfer registration that it donated to the Plaintiff, double taxation on that part is not allowed. Therefore, the disposition imposing global income tax for 2008 is unlawful.

(3) Even if the claims donated by the Plaintiff were monetary claims, the Plaintiff did not participate in the business of BB operated by the Plaintiff as a family owner, and only acquired only the name of the claims that need not be registered or registered as her husband by lending her husband's name to her husband, and DoD, a de facto holder, was not a trust for the purpose of tax avoidance, and not only did DoD, a de facto holder, have a trust for the purpose of tax avoidance, but also did not result in the result of tax evasion due to the determination of gift tax assessment against the Plaintiff in the previous judgment, so the provision on the donation of title trust does not apply to

In addition, the assignment of claims is transferred to the assignee while maintaining its identity, and the claim that the Plaintiff acquired is a business claim that was lent to CCC as a part of the business activity by BB, the income should be considered as income and the necessary expenses should be deducted. However, since D&D borrowed money from EE for the instant monetary loan as a shareholder of BB, and paid the interest O&O for the instant monetary loan, D&O paid to EE should be deducted from the necessary expenses. Accordingly, the imposition of global income tax for the year 2008, which was based on a different premise, is unlawful.

4. Determination

A. Legal nature of the claim that the plaintiff acquired

" 갑 제1， 3， 4호증， 을 제5 내지 8호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면，△ BBB과 CCC 사이에 BBB이 CCC에게 OOOO원을 대여하기로 약정하는 내용의 대부거래약정서가 작성된 사실，△ 이와 별도로 원고와 CCC 사이에 원고가 CCC에 OOOO원을 투자하고， 투자의 증거로 OO시 OO구 OO동 11-37 대 99㎡， OO시 OO구 OO동 11-38 대 99㎡및 그 지상 벽돌조 평슬래브지붕 2층 주택 및 점포， OO시 OO구 OO동 15-25 대 126㎡에 대하여 OOOO원에 소유권이전청구권가등기를 경료받기로 약정하는 내용의 2005. 11. 8.자 투자약정서가 작성된 사실，△ DDD가 2009. 8. 24. 서울지방국세청에 출석하여 'BBB이 2005. 11. 8. CCC에 OOOO원을 빌려주고， 그 담보조로 OO시 OO구 OO동 11-38 대 99㎡및 그 지상 벽돌조 평슬래브지붕 2층 주택 및 점포에 관하여 원고 앞으로 소유권이전청구권가등기가 마쳐졌는데， 위 OOOO원은 CCC의 돈 OOOO원과 DDD와 원고의 돈 각 OOOO원으로 마련한 것'이라고 진술한 사실이 인정된다.", 위 인정사실을 종합해 보면，BBB이 CCC에 대한 OOOO원의 대여금채권을 원고에게 양도하면서 이를 확인하는 의미에서 원고와 CCC 사이의 투자약정서를 별도로 작성하였고，원고는 위 대여금채권의 회수를 위하여 위 각 부동산 중 일부에 관하여 소유권이전청구권가등기를 경료받은 것으로 봄이 상당하다.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not have interest income on the premise that the Plaintiff merely acquired the right to claim ownership transfer registration from BB.

(b) Whether double taxation is levied;

double taxation or double taxation means the imposition of two same or similar taxes for the same taxable object generally;

The gift tax on the Plaintiff was imposed on the Plaintiff’s donated to CCC by BB around November 2005, while the global income tax on the Plaintiff was imposed on the profits accruing from non-business loans that the Plaintiff imported from CCC in 2006 and 2008, which is the debtor, and thus the subject of imposition, tax requirements, and the method of calculating the tax base and tax amount are both different, and there were no interest income that may accrue to the Plaintiff in the future in calculating the donated property subject to gift tax. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the gift tax on the Plaintiff and the global income tax on the same subject of taxation were imposed in duplicate. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

C. Whether title trust and necessary expenses are subject to deduction

(1) First, there is no evidence to support the Plaintiff’s assertion that the claim against BB, which was taken over under the name of the Plaintiff, was actually acquired by DD, the Plaintiff’s husband, and that only lent the name to DD. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(2) We examine the following and necessary expenses deductions.

Business income is income generated from certain businesses continuously and repeatedly conducted for profit-making purposes, but interest income is not recognized as necessary expenses due to the interest acquired temporarily or on a one-time basis.

In this case, even if the Plaintiff acquired the instant loan claims from BB, the Plaintiff could not be deemed as a business operator since the Plaintiff did not have registered credit business at the time of the instant loan claims transfer. In full view of the fact that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had continuously and repeatedly engaged in credit business against the debtor such as CCC, etc. for profit-making purposes, and that the Plaintiff received OOOOO from the Plaintiff in 2008 shall be included in interest income under Article 16 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, such as interest or fees that the Plaintiff received as a temporary and contingent loan by a person who does not have the purpose of lending money temporarily and repeatedly, because it constitutes a profit from a non-business loan under Article 26 (3) of the Income Tax Act.

As such, as long as the Plaintiff’s OOO personnel imported from CCC in 2008 is regarded as a non-business payment, which is a kind of interest income, and the necessary expenses therefor are not recognized, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above income is a business income is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2008 shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is consistent with this conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.