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

Cheong-gu Office

"The head of Seodaemun-gu Tax Office revokes the imposition of global income tax for the year 2007, global income tax for the year 2008, global income tax for the year 2008, and global income tax for the year 2009 by the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the "head of Eunpyeong-gu") against the Plaintiff on November 1, 2012, respectively, and revokes the imposition of the imposition of the local income tax for the year 2007, local income tax for the year 2008, local income tax for the year 2008, and local income tax for the year 2009, respectively."

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a business operator who engages in the lease business, etc. of the main Meart 600-9 located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. From August 28, 2012 to September 11, 2012, Defendant Seodaemun-gu Head of the tax office omitted a return on interest income OO (OOOO in 2007, OOOOO in 2008, OOOOO in 2009, OOOOO in 209, hereinafter referred to as “the interest income in this case”) and real estate rental income paid by the Plaintiff from GangwonB, and on November 1, 2012, the head of the tax office imposed an global income tax OOO in 207, global income tax OOOO in 2008, global income tax OOO in 209, and global income tax OOO in 209 (hereinafter referred to as “instant global income tax”), but the head of the regional income tax office rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for imposition of KRW 201,00,000 for the instant tax year 200,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

“The Plaintiff lent money over 43 occasions from October 1990 to April 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “each transaction in this case”). The Plaintiff did not obtain authorization from financial business, but continuously and repeatedly lent money, so the interest income in this case should be deemed as business income. Therefore, each disposition in this case premised on the interest income in this case is unlawful, and see three pages of the decision.”

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether a lending of money constitutes interest income or business income depends on whether a lending of money constitutes a business under the Income Tax Act. Whether such lending of money constitutes a business under the Income Tax Act or not shall be determined in light of social norms, taking into account all the circumstances, such as profit-making, continuity, repetition, existence of repetition, the length of the trading period, the difference between the lending amount and the interest amount (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du14505, Aug. 19, 2005).

2) In full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s lending of money to the GangwonB does not constitute a business under the Income Tax Act, taking into account the following circumstances revealed by adding up the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings. Therefore, the instant interest income falls under interest income, not business income, and thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

A) Most of the instant transactions were conducted after August 2003. Considering the time when the instant transactions were conducted and the time when the instant transactions were conducted, it is difficult to deem that the instant transactions were conducted between the instant 1 and 4 and the instant 5 to 43 transactions to be continued.

B) Of the instant 5-43 transactions, if excluded from the transactions made between GangwonB and CCC Construction Co., Ltd. (the representative director of the said company is GangwonB), and NaD, only the transactions that remitted OOOO won to E, 1 December 26, 2005, 2007, 2007, 2007, 207, 2007, 30, 207, 30, 20, 2009, 20, 20, 30, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20,00.

However, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 6, although it is recognized that the plaintiff transferred OOO to FF Construction Co., Ltd. on October 30, 2007, OOOOOOO and OOOOOOOOOOOOO to Y on January 7, 2009, and Kim H on April 28, 2009, there is no objective data that the plaintiff could know the cause of remitting each of the above money. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff lent FF construction, Y, etc. to FFG, and Kim H, etc. on the sole basis of the statement in evidence No. 6 and No. 10, there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

C) In addition to lending money to GB and CCC Construction Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff leased money to BD in addition to lending money. Considering the size, frequency, relationship with the other party, etc. of the above monetary transaction act, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff lent money to BB as part of the business.

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.