Therefore, it is difficult to deem that there is a ground for filing a subsequent claim for correction because the lease contract independently made on the grounds of post-issuance.

Since each lease contract was made independently, it is difficult to conclude that there is a ground for filing a subsequent claim for correction since the lease contract cannot be cancelled for the reason of deception in the subsequent lease contract during the individual taxable period.

Article 45-2 (Request for Correction, etc.)

Article 25-2 (Ex Post Factor Causes)

2016Guhap5764 Revocation of Disposition rejecting the rectification of global income tax

AA and four others

○ Head of Tax Office and four others

November 22, 2016

December 22, 2016

1. The plaintiffs' respective claims against the defendants are dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office’s rejection disposition against Plaintiff AA on August 17, 2015, the head of the tax office’s rejection disposition against correction made against Plaintiff BB on June 29, 2015, the head of the tax office’s rejection disposition made against Plaintiff BB on August 12, 2015, the head of the tax office’s rejection disposition made against Plaintiff CCC on August 12, 2015, the head of the tax office’s correction disposition made by Defendant △△△ head of the tax office against Plaintiff DD on August 12, 2015, the head of the tax office’s rejection disposition made against Plaintiff EE on August 10, 2015, respectively, is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From 2008 to 2011, the Plaintiffs loaned money from FF and GGG (hereinafter “FF”) to FF to pay the principal and interest equivalent to 10% interest on the principal and interest on the principal within three months of lending money to FF, etc. under the invitation of FF, etc. to pay the interest equivalent to 10% of the principal and interest on the principal and interest on the principal and interest within three months of lending the money. After again lending the money, the Plaintiffs repeated the process of receiving 10% interest on the principal and interest on the principal and interest within three months from FF, etc., regardless of the time when the principal and interest were collected.

B. For the period from 2008 to 2010, annual loans, recovered amounts, and interest between the Plaintiffs and FF are as indicated in the separate sheet.

다. 한편, FFF 등은 2011. 11.경 원고들에게 2011년 9월분, 10월분 및 11월분의 대여원금에 관한 조기정산금을 지급한 후 원고들이 그때까지 이자 명목으로 수령한 각 대여원금 10% 상당 금액의 합계액을 대여원금과 상계하였고, 그 결과 대여원금 중 원고 AAA은 〇〇〇〇원, 원고 BBB은 〇〇〇〇원, 원고 CCC은 〇〇〇〇원, 원고 DDD은 〇〇〇〇원, 원고 EEE은 〇〇〇〇원을 변제받지 못하였다.

D. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on the plaintiffs for the taxable year from 2008 to 2010, and then notified the defendants that the plaintiffs should levy a comprehensive income tax on the interest amount of 10% collected from FF, etc. with the principal amount from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2010 as interest income (hereinafter referred to as "interest income at issue"). Accordingly, the defendants decided and notified the plaintiffs that each global income tax for the taxable year from 2008 to 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the global income tax at issue") belongs to the interest income (hereinafter referred to as "the first disposition at issue", and the taxable period for the first disposition at issue is referred to as "the taxable period at issue").

E. The Plaintiffs, who were dissatisfied with the initial disposition, brought an administrative lawsuit to the court upon the request for adjudication against the Director of the Tax Tribunal, but lost all.

F. After that, when the FF et al. was convicted of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in relation to the above loan and the judgment became final and conclusive, the plaintiffs sent a notice of cancellation of monetary loan contract with FF et al. on May 21, 2015 that all loans contract between the plaintiff and FF et al. between the plaintiff and FF et al. were by fraud or deception of FF et al., and the above notice reached FF et al. at that time.

G. On June 12, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a subsequent claim for correction on the ground that all the loan agreements entered into between the Plaintiff and the FF with the Defendants were revoked on the ground of fraud and became retroactively null and void, and thus, the interest under the loan agreement was not generated. However, the Defendants rejected all the Plaintiffs’ claim for correction at that time (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”).

H. On September 25, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal against the instant rejection disposition, but the appeal was dismissed on December 28, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number in the case of additional number), and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

Since FF, etc. entered into a lending contract with the Plaintiffs from January 208 to induce re-investment of the Plaintiffs and used the method to pay interest to the Plaintiffs and borrow money again in the manner of so-called 'the intention to attract re-investment', it was revealed by the criminal final judgment of this case, the lending contract that the Plaintiffs entered into with FF, etc. during the pertinent taxable period (hereinafter referred to as the "each lending contract of this case") is both by fraud such as FF, etc. However, since each of the lending contracts of this case was revoked by the plaintiffs' declaration of intent to cancel the contract of this case and retroactively invalidated, the interest income arising from each of the above lending contracts of this case shall be deemed to have not occurred from the beginning. Accordingly, there are grounds for filing a subsequent claim for correction under Article 45-2 (2) 5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 25-2 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, or b. related statutes or regulations

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to the statements in Gap evidence 1-1-3, the fact that FF et al. borrowed money to plaintiff CCC, DDD, and EE in the art transaction business even though it did not intend to conduct the art transaction business, the fact that F et al. obtained money from the above plaintiffs by means of false statement that "if it borrowed money necessary for the art transaction business, it would pay the principal and interest of 10% after three months, it shall be paid 10% interest."

However, according to the background of the above disposition and the above evidence, the prosecutor recognized that the FF, etc.’s act of deception by borrowing money from the Plaintiff CCC, DDD, and EE was from September 8, 201, which was the first taxable period after the issue, and charged FF, etc. with the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and the fact that the plaintiffs received all principal and interest due to the loan from FF, etc. during the pertinent taxable period.

In light of the following circumstances, the facts of recognition, Eul's evidence 3-1 to 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiffs' assertion cannot be accepted, since the grounds alleged by the plaintiffs alone are not enough to deem that there exist the grounds for filing a subsequent request for correction under Article 45-2 (2) 5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 25-2 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

① As seen earlier, the prosecutor indicted Plaintiff CCC, DD, and EE, including FF, on September 8, 201, which was after the pertinent taxable period, on the grounds that the deception against the Plaintiff CCC, DD, and EE was deemed to have existed after the pertinent taxable period. Accordingly, even according to the instant criminal final judgment, the issues in the taxable period may be deemed to have existed before the said criminal final judgment was made by deception of FF, etc. In addition, Plaintiff AA and BB did not state as the victim of the instant criminal final judgment.

② In doing loan transactions with FF, the Plaintiffs do not seem to have concluded a basic contract that regulates all of the lending activities in common, and it appears that each of the instant lending contracts was independently concluded during the pertinent taxable period. Therefore, each of the instant lending contracts cannot be revoked on the ground of the deception of each of the respective lending contracts after September 8, 201.

③ The instant global income tax concerns loan transactions between the Plaintiffs and the FF, etc. from 2008 to 2010, and the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have suffered any loss because they received all principal and interest due to loan from FF, etc. during the said period. Nevertheless, the revocation of each of the instant loan contracts after the fact can only be deemed to have arisen from the purpose of tax avoidance, and there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiffs returned the interest originally received following the revocation. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ interest income cannot be deemed to have been extinguished ex post facto under the principle of substantial taxation.

D. Sub-committee

The rejection disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

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