beta
Text
1. On July 29, 201, the Defendant imposed an imposition of global income tax of KRW 225,121,350 on the Plaintiff for the year 2009.
Reasons
1. On July 29, 201, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 225,121,350 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff on the ground that “if the Plaintiff loaned KRW 160,00,000 to B, it received reimbursement of KRW 708,542,031 won (=708,542,031 won - 160,000,000), which constitutes a benefit of a non-business loan under Article 16(1)12 of the Income Tax Act.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff invested KRW 160,00,000 in the real estate investment business in B, but received KRW 708,542,031. The disposition of this case based on the premise that the Plaintiff is an interest income is unlawful, since the Plaintiff’s difference in KRW 548,542,031, which is not the interest income, is not the interest income.
(2) Article 16 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009) (1) Interest income shall be the following income generated during the relevant year:
12. Profits accruing from a non-business loan;
C. Around May 2002, the Plaintiff acquired real estate through a court auction, and became aware of B, which acquired the difference by selling it to another person, and maintained the internal relationship with B from January 2003, 2003. Around May 29, 2003, the Plaintiff attempted to purchase the Incheon Bupyeong-gu Incheon District Court’s auction of the Incheon District Court, but intended to obtain a loan to a financial institution due to the lack of money.
Around June 2003, the Plaintiff, which became aware of this time, remitted KRW 60,00,000 to B while demanding the Defendant to make an investment in money. Around February 2004, the Plaintiff wired KRW 100,000,000 to B unilaterally making an investment in money. At that time, the Plaintiff did not enter into an agreement for payment or interest payment.
3B was unable to purchase the above C land since then, and sought to return the above KRW 160,000 to the Plaintiff.