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

Cheong-gu Office

The part of the disposition imposing global income tax on the Plaintiff x 20 x 20 x 0 ○○○○○○○ (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff x the imposition of global income tax on the Plaintiff over the year shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiff was the Chairperson by establishing BB (hereinafter “BB”) that is engaged in the sales, export, and import, etc. of drugs x 20 x. 】 (20 x 8.24 x ; hereinafter “mutual change as of August 24, 2015). BB was closed on March 2, 2015 and was ordered to be dissolved on December 11, 2012.

B. The Defendant confirmed that ○○○○○○○○○○○ was omitted from the Plaintiff’s report on sales to BB, and that ○○○○○○○○○○○ was deposited into the Plaintiff’s account, 20 x 20 x 30 x 20 x 30 x 30 x 1 x 30 x x 20 x x 30 x 1 x 30 x 20 x 30 x 30 x 20 x 30 x 20 x 30 x 30 x 30 x 30 x 1 x 30 x 30 x 1 x 30 x , respectively, disposed of as a bonus for the Plaintiff’s dynamicd as at the time of the outflow from the company, and notified the changes in the income amount.

C. On June 9, 200, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the notice of imposition of global income tax on the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○. On June 22, 200, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for pre-assessment review with the Defendant on the notice of imposition of global income tax by the above bonus income disposition x 20 x x 20 x x x △△△△△△ on June 20, 2016. On July 29, 2016, the Defendant rendered a re-assessment decision that “the tax base and tax amount shall be corrected according to the results of re-audit of the fact-finding of the withdrawal of the Plaintiff’s global income tax on the instant borrowed account. DD also received a re-audit decision on the ownership of the amount disposed of as bonus income.

D. The Defendant’s 20 x 20 x 20 x from August 17 to September 23, 200 x 20 x. The result of re-audit on the place of use of the amount withdrawn from the instant borrowed account and its reversion. As a result, the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○ Won, which was disposed of as a bonus for D pursuant to the statement on the current status of cash receipts and disbursements submitted by the Plaintiff, deemed the Plaintiff as additionally reverted to the Plaintiff, and the total amount of bonus income disposition against the Plaintiff, became the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Won among which the ○○○○○○○○ Won was deemed as a loan half, and the ○○○○○○○○○ Won (hereinafter referred to as “instant amount”) was classified as a bonus. Accordingly, the Defendant was classified as a leased income, and the ○○○○○○○ Won was classified as a 207 x x 】 20 】 (including additional tax).

(e) The plaintiff is dissatisfied with it 20 x 7 】. 】. The plaintiff shall file an objection 】 20 】 7. 】 】. 】. Although a request for adjudication was filed with the Tax Tribunal, 20 x 7 】 】. The plaintiff was dismissed

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5-8, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The key issue amount is not interest but interest. Even if the interest falls under the interest, the principal was no longer recovered as the BB discontinued, and the amount recovered up to now falls short of the principal, so it cannot be deemed that interest income was realized as much as the key amount. Nevertheless, the instant disposition based on the premise that the key amount is interest income is illegal.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) BB 20 】 The sum of loans borrowed from the Plaintiff on the cash receipts and disbursements table of October 19, 190 】 20 ○○○○○○○, and BB x 20 x 9 x. The remainder of the Plaintiff’s provisional deposits as of November 9, 199 is ○○○○○○.

2) The details of the Plaintiff’s receipt of the key amount through the instant borrowed name account are as follows. BB-20 x 20 x 28 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 20 x 10 x 10 x 20 x 10 x 10 x 10

3) BB 20 】 20 】 】 20 】 The main contents of each standard balance sheet for the business year are as follows:

4) The details of the dispute and agreement regarding the management right of the Plaintiff, DD and EE (Plaintiff’s son’s son), FF (Plaintiff’s wife), and GG (Plaintiff’s wife)

A) The Plaintiff established BB and operated it as the president. The Plaintiff was the representative director of BB. 10 of the Plaintiff’s total outstanding shares of BB x 4,000 of 00 x 3 x 000 x 3 x 2,000 Plaintiff’s wife III, 2,000 Hah held each name.

(B) EE, FF, and GG are 20 x 20 x. 4.11.4. each transfer of all the shares of the BB earlier from DD, HH and III, 20 x 20 x 12 bB. 1.2.

C) EE, FF, and GG hold a temporary general meeting of shareholders on December 2, 12 x 20 x 20 x. BB, DD was removed from the representative director on the ground that DD suffered enormous damage to BB due to embezzlement, breach of trust, creation of illegal funds, evasion of tax, etc. while performing its duties, and resolution was made to appoint EE as the representative director, JJ, KK as the in-house director, and FF as the auditor. EE, JJ, KJ, KK, and FF were appointed as the representative director, internal director, and auditor in accordance with the above resolution on the same day.

D) The Plaintiff and DD (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) agreed with the EE on May 2, 2000 x 20 x 5.2 hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”).

[Ground of recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 9-12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether the issue amount constitutes interest

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to view that the key amount was received as interest on loans to BB by the Plaintiff.

A) BB-20 x 20 x. The sum of loans from the Plaintiff on the cash receipts and disbursements table on October 19, 100 x 20 x 9 x. The Plaintiff’s provisional receipts and disbursements table on November 9, 190 x 20 x 20 x 20 x x 20 x x 20 x 8 times until November 10, 190 x the issues paid by BB-3 to the Plaintiff through the instant borrowed name account, etc. on the cash receipts and disbursements table on each of the cash receipts and disbursements table on August 19, 200 . BB did not deduct the key amount from the sum of the Plaintiff’s loans or the balance of provisional receipts and disbursements.

B) BB 20 】 The standard balance sheet for the business year 】 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in the other current debt on the balance sheet 】 Plaintiff 20 】 (the date of loans on BB) 】 ○○ billion in the end of the year. Rather, it would be reasonable to consider that the Plaintiff in a special relationship with BB could be denied due to wrongful calculation if he/she lent the loan to BB free of charge. However, the Plaintiff cannot find any details of the Plaintiff’s interest received from B, except the key amount.

2) Whether the issue amount can be excluded from interest income

Enforcement Decree of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22580, Dec. 30, 2010)

Article 51 provides that when calculating the total amount of profits accruing from a non-business loan, if the whole or part of the principal and interest cannot be recovered from the debtor or a third party because the relevant non-business loan falls under the bonds stipulated in Article 55 (2) 1 or 2 before the final return on tax base pursuant to Article 70 of the Act or the determination and correction of tax base and tax amount pursuant to Article 80 of the Act, the calculation shall be made by first subtracting the principal from the recovered amount, and if the recovered amount falls short of the principal, the total amount shall be deemed nonexistent." Article 55 (2) 1 provides that "the bonds which cannot be recovered due to the debtor's bankruptcy, compulsory execution, execution of the punishment or the discontinuation of the business" and Article 5 (2) 2 provides that "the bonds which cannot be recovered due to the debtor's death

The purport of the above provision is to conclude that interest claims are not recoverable due to the debtor's bankruptcy, discontinuation of business, etc. and the possibility of realizing such interest income in the future is clear, in exceptional cases where special circumstances exist to deem that it would not be subject to income tax. Therefore, the taxpayer is liable to assert and prove that such special circumstances exist, and whether it is impossible to recover interest claims should be objectively determined in accordance with social norms by comprehensively taking into account the details of the relevant transactions, the circumstances thereafter, the debtor's asset situation, and payment ability.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the following circumstances revealed by the purport of the entire argument, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s claim for loans, the principal of which is the key amount due to the closure of BB, the debtor, is not objectively evident. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the key amount may not be excluded from interest income.

A) BB-20 】 20 】 20 】 (20 】 The total assets on each standard balance sheet of the business year 】 The amount of the Plaintiff’s loan to ○○○○○○○○○ KRW. The other debts belonging to the Plaintiff’s loan amounting to ○○○○○○○. This is due to circumstances to deem that the Plaintiff was paid 20 】 (the Plaintiff was paid ○○○ billion loan from BB around a year) 】 The Plaintiff’s loan amounting to ○○○○○○○ billion was insufficient to recognize the BB’s asset without meaning in the process of management dispute regardless of the Plaintiff’s loan repayment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

B) Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, EE, FF, and GG have problems such as embezzlement, drug rebates, etc. in the course of operating BB, and in return, the Plaintiff waives the Plaintiff’s investment (loan) KRW 00 billion and additionally pays KRW 00 billion to the Plaintiff (based on the time when the amount of credit is the largest). DDR has filed a criminal complaint with the Plaintiff, etc. for embezzlement, breach of trust, and fraud after demanding waiver of management rights and waiver of share certificates, and filed the instant agreement with the Plaintiff, etc. on May 2, 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 12.12 x 12.20 x 20 x 12.20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 203.22). Accordingly, the Plaintiff is merely a waiver of personal loan claims prior to the closure of business operation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.