early 201J 2846 ( December 30, 2011)

It shall be deemed that the profits from investment in real estate investment projects are not interest income but investment income.

The plaintiff agreed to invest in real estate investment projects, to receive an investment share corresponding to a part of the orchard in lieu of the return of the investment amount, and to receive the amount of money due to the acceptance of the orchard, and the difference shall be deemed to be the investment return, not the interest income.

2012Guhap1635 Global Income and Revocation of Disposition

Aba

The director of the North Incheon National Tax Office

August 17, 2012

August 31, 2012

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing global income tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on July 29, 201 shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

On July 29, 2011, the defendant lent KRW 000 to KimD, but received interest income of KRW 000 by receiving payment of KRW 000,000, which is subject to the interest of non-business loan under Article 16 (1) 12 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter "the disposition in this case").

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence l, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff invested KRW 000 in the real estate investment business of KimD and received KRW 000,000, and the difference is not an interest income but an investment profit, so the instant disposition based on the premise that it is an interest income is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Paper in the Appendix

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On May 2002, the Plaintiff acquired real estate through a court auction, and acquired the difference by selling it to another person, and became aware of the KimD, which was increasing property by acquiring the difference, and maintained the relationship with KimD from January 2003.

2) On May 29, 2003, in the auction procedure of the Incheon District Court, KimD intended to purchase more than 367 square meters of the Incheon Bupyeong-gu OOdong 000 square meters, but it was intended to obtain a loan to a financial institution due to lack of money. The Plaintiff, which became aware of this time, transferred KRW 000 to KimD while he requested the Defendant to invest money on June 2003, and transferred KRW 00 to KimD more unilaterally while he requested the Defendant to unilaterally invest money on February 2004, and did not enter into a payment period or interest payment agreement at that time.

3) Since then KimD was unable to purchase the above 61-6 land at the same time, and attempted to return the above 000 won to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff refused to use it and allowed KimD to continue to use the above 00 won.

4) On April 30, 2004, in lieu of the return of the above 000 won, KimD made and delivered a sales contract (hereinafter referred to as the "first contract of this case") to sell to the Plaintiff the share amounting to 1,652.9 square meters of the 000 O, Jung-gu, Incheon, U.S. O. O.O. 00 O. 15,000 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the orchard of this case"), which is owned by KimD, for 00 won. On the other hand, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff demanded KimD to increase the purchase price stated in the first contract of this case and to expand the subject of the sale, and KimD prepared the sales contract (hereinafter referred to as "the contract of this case") to sell to the Plaintiff a share equivalent to 330,000 square meters of the orchard of this case, and to sell it to 00,000 won.

5) On September 28, 2005, the Plaintiff was examined under suspicion of injury, confinement, etc. to KimD at the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office, and the main contents stated by KimD in relation to the instant case are as follows.

6) On November 8, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the registration of ownership transfer under the contract of this case with the Incheon District Court 2005Gahap15747 around November 8, 2005, and subsequently filed a lawsuit for the registration of ownership transfer under the contract of this case with the Seoul District Court 2005Gahap15747, and on November 16, 2006, the Plaintiff invested in KimD not with the above court 160,000,000 won, but with the above court 160, the Plaintiff agreed to transfer 3,300 square meters out of the instant orchard to the Plaintiff as a substitute payment, and Mala decided that the Plaintiff performed the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer under the contract of this case with the court 2007Na110, and the judgment of the appellate court 2007 DaDa28167, decided on November 14, 2007.

7) Meanwhile, on June 1, 2006, KimD deposited 000 won (i.e., principal KRW 000 + interest KRW 000) with the Plaintiff as the principal deposited as the principal.

8) The instant orchard, as incorporated into the site for the development project of the Incheon Free Economic Zone, was expropriated by the Korea Land Corporation on October 25, 2007, and the Korea Land Corporation, on December 12, 2007, made KimD as a depositee, with the Incheon District Court No. 10190 won per square meter (=15,009 square meters x 000 won).

9) On November 20, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against KimD seeking the assignment of the claim for payment of deposit money (i.e., KRW 000,000 among the above deposit (i.e., KRW 1,652.9 square meters) from the Incheon District Court (i.e., KRW 1,652.9 square meters) and was awarded a favorable judgment from the above court on November 20, 208, which became final and conclusive around that time, and received the above KRW 00 on January 23, 2009.

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute, significant facts on party members, and the items in Gap 1 through 4, and the whole purport of the pleading

D. Determination

살피건대， 위 인정사실에서 본 바와 같은 아래의 사정에 비추어 보면， 원고는 김QQ의 투자사업 수완을 선뢰하여 김DD의 부동산 투자사업 자체에 000원을 투자하고 김DD으로부터 투자금의 반환에 갈음하여 이 사건 과수원 중 1，652.9㎡에 해당하는 지분을 대물변제 받기로 약정하였고，이 사건 과수원이 수용됨에 따라 그 지분에 따른 708，542，031원을 수령하게 되었는바，그 차액 000원은 이자소득이 아니라 투자수익이라고 봄이 상당하므로，원고의 주장은 이유 있다.

① The Plaintiff, from June 2003 to February 2004, remitted KRW 000 to KimD, and did not enter into an agreement on KimD, maturity, rate, etc. at that time, and KimD recognized that the said KRW 00 is an investment amount.

② Since KimD used the above KRW 00 in real estate investment business, and did not have profit for a considerable period of time in the investment business, Kim Jong-D Co., Ltd. entered into the first contract of this case with the purport that the Plaintiff shall return the above KRW 000 to the Plaintiff and shall accord and pay shares equivalent to KRW 1,652.9 square meters in the instant orchard.

③ The Plaintiff had filed a lawsuit claiming the registration of ownership transfer against KimD, and filed a Eup of 000 won investment funds to 1,652.9 square meters of the instant orchard, and thus, the judgment of the Plaintiff became final and conclusive that the Plaintiff performed the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer under the L contract of this case.

④ Although KimD deposited 00 won as the principal deposit on June 1, 2006 with the Plaintiff as the principal deposit, and the above repayment deposit was unilaterally made by KimD while the lawsuit between the Plaintiff and KimD was pending, there was no validity of the deposit for repayment, and even if the Plaintiff did not complete the registration of ownership transfer on shares equivalent to 1,652.9 square meters in the instant orchard, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s 00 won invested before the payment agreement was changed to the loan that is not the investment deposit. Accordingly, the instant disposition made by the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.