National High Court 1996Gyeong0246 (O1, 1996)

Global Income

Dismissal

According to the distribution schedule of the real estate auction case of the Dong branch branch of the Seoul District Court, it is confirmed that the Dong branch of the Seoul District Court paid interest on November 10, 201 to the claimant along with the principal. However, the claimant asserted that this fact was not presented with relevant documents, such as a contract for collateral security, a certificate of receipt of dividend, etc., which caused the payment of the auction dividend, and that ○○○, other than the claimant, was forged in the name of the claimant and received the dividend from the court. However, the fact is not proven, and therefore, the initial disposition imposing the comprehensive income tax on the claimant according to the contents of the

Article 7 of the Income Tax Act / substantial taxation under Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

I dismiss the appeal.

1. Summary of disposition;

The claimant is a person who has an address in the OOOOOOOOOOO in Gyeonggi-do.

Based on the distribution schedule of the real estate auction case (13394, around 90 o.8.3, 1394) in the Dong Branch branch of the Seoul District Court, the agency made a registration of mortgage creation on the neighborhood living facilities and housing of 655.65m2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the third-story underground floor located above 340.1m2, Songpa-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City OOOO site, and lent KRW 200,000 to OOO of the instant real estate to 20,000,000 as a voluntary auction, and did not pay the comprehensive income tax after receiving the principal and loan interest from 30,00,000,000 (hereinafter “instant interest”) from OOOO site in the Seoul District Court as a member of the Dong branch of the Seoul District Court on November 10, 101, and notified the applicant of the global income tax for 91, 313,1200.

The claimant appealed against this and filed a request for a review on September 11, 195.

2. Opinion of the petitioner and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service;

A. The claimant's assertion

The claimant did not receive dividends through the auction of the instant real estate or the establishment of a collateral security right to the instant real estate, and there was no other fact that the claimant issued a certificate of the applicant’s seal impression upon the request of the non-party OOOO who is the bond company. As the claimant did not receive the key interest but received the key interest by stealing the name of the claimant. Thus, the initial disposition imposed on the claimant for the key interest is unfair disposition that violates the substance over form principle.

(b) Opinions of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service;

According to the distribution schedule of the real estate auction case of the Dong branch branch of the Seoul District Court, the Dong branch of the Seoul District Court confirmed that the claimant had paid interest on November 10, 191 to the principal and interest along with the principal. However, the claimant asserted that this fact was not presented with related documents, such as a contract for collateral security, a certificate of receipt of dividend, etc., which caused the payment of the successful bid dividend, but the OOO, other than the claimant, forged the title of the claimant and received the dividend from the court and received the dividend from the court. However, the fact is not proven, and the initial disposition imposing the comprehensive income tax on the claimant according to the contents

3. Hearing and determination

A. Key issue

The dispute over this case is that the interest income is attributed to the claimant and the validity of the disposition imposing the general income tax is determined.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 7 (1) of the Income Tax Act provides that "in case there is only a nominal attribution of income and there is another person who actually obtains such income, the income tax shall be imposed (the short sentence omitted) by applying this Act to the person who actually obtains such income under Article 14 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes."

C. Facts and determination

(1) According to the certified copy of the register of the instant real estate, the claimant confirmed that the instant real estate had been registered as an obligor as an OOO with the obligor outside the claim and with the maximum debt amount of KRW 300,000,000, along with OO other than the claim No. 30.8.3, the claimant confirmed that the instant real estate had been registered as an auction upon the application for auction by the OOO bank outside the claim on January 5, 191, and that the auction had been initiated on April 24, 191.

(2) According to the distribution schedule related to the voluntary auction case of the instant real estate held by the Seoul District Court building site manager, the claimant is confirmed to have received the loan of KRW 200,000,000 from the proceeds from the sale of the instant real estate from the purchase of the instant real estate from the members of the Dong site of the Seoul District Court as Seoul District Court on November 10, 191 to the other O, and the loan interest of KRW 60,00,000 among them is recognized as KRW 30,000.

(3) The claimant did not have received dividends through the auction of the instant real estate or the fact that he/she received the interest on the instant real estate. Although the OOO, the bond company, alleged that he/she received the interest on the instant real estate by stealing the claimant’s name, the OOO did not directly prove the fact that the OOOO registered the creation of the right to collateral security and received the interest on the issue by stealing the claimant’s name.

As above, it is not proven that OOO used the name of the claimant and received the interest on the issue. Thus, the disposition agency is deemed to have reverted to the claimant based on the distribution schedule of the real estate auction price in the Dong branch branch of the Seoul District Court, and it is judged that there was no error of the initial disposition imposing the comprehensive income tax on the claimant.

D. Accordingly, the appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with Articles 81 and 65(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.