Incheon District Court 201Guu4651 (2012.31)

early 2010 Heavy229 ( October 19, 201)

Since the right to collateral security established on real estate is limited to part of the loan claimed by the plaintiff, the excess amount constitutes interest income.

It is reasonable to consider that the secured claim of the right to collateral security established on real estate is limited to part of the whole loan claimed by the plaintiff, and the evidence alone submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the real estate has secured other claims of the plaintiff, and the disposition imposing the excess amount of the leased principal as interest income is legitimate because it cannot be deemed clear that it is impossible to

2012Nu19511 Revocation, etc. of the imposition of global income tax

AA

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

Incheon District Court Decision 201Guhap4651 Decided May 31, 2012

July 23, 2013

August 30, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The disposition of imposition by the Defendant on December 1, 2009 against the Plaintiff on the global income tax and the OOO of resident tax shall be revoked.

1. Global income tax and resident tax;

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1 to 5, evidence 1 to 2, evidence 3, evidence 4, and evidence 1, evidence 4, and evidence 4-1, and evidence 2, the following private theories are recognized:

[1]

〇 원고는 2004. 7. 8. BBB 소유의 OO시 O동 548-7， 548-8， 548-9 대지 및 그 지상 건물 2동(이하 '이 사건 부동산'이라고 한다)에 관하여 채무자 BBB， 채권최고액 OOOO원으로 하는 근저당권설정등기를 마쳤다.

〇 원고는 이 사건 부동산에 관한 임의경매 절차(수원지방법원 2007타경27341)에서 원 금 OOOO원， 이자 OOOO원， 합계 OOOO원의 채권을 신고하였고， 2008. 5. 13. 이 사건 부동산의 배당절차에서 근저당권의 채권최고액인 OOOO원을 배당받았다(이하 '이 사건 배당금'이라고 한다)

[2]

〇 피고는 이 사건 배당금 중 채권 원금 OOOO원을 초과한 OOOO원을 이자소득으로 보아 2009. 12. 1. 원고에게 2008년 귀속 종합소득세 OOOO원 및 주민세 OOOO원을 경정 ・ 고지하였다.

〇 이에 불복하여 원고가 2010. 3. 3. 이의신청을 거쳐 2010. 6. 25. 조세심판원에 심판청구를 제기하였으나 2011. 7. 19. 심판청구가 기각되었다.

2. Whether the part concerning the request for revocation of resident tax is legitimate;

The reasons for this part are as follows: 2. It is the same as 'the previous decision of the first instance court from 2. 18 to 3. 10 . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. ... .... ..... ......

3. Determination on imposition of global income tax

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, as a joint security, lent the sum of OOOOO to CCC, acquired the mortgage on the real estate in this case and the site and ground buildings (hereinafter referred to as "DDR," hereinafter) of OO-dong O-Gu O-O 66-14, and collected OOOO in the course of sale of DDR around August 2004, but did not receive any remainder of the loan. On June 26, 2006, the plaintiff did not receive any dividends at all due to the senior credit in the distribution process of DDR sold at voluntary auction, and after receiving the dividends of the dividends of this case, the remaining amount of claims was settled as OOO on May 15, 2008, and the dividends of this case did not extend to the principal of the loans at the time of the distribution.

Therefore, the above loan claims constitute "unrepaid bonds" under Article 55 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21301 of Feb. 4, 2009; hereinafter the same applies), and Article 51 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the amount recovered when the principal of the loan is deducted from the dividend of this case falls short of the principal and the amount of interest income falls short of the principal, and thus, the imposition of global income tax on which the defendant reported OOO as interest income is illegal.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are recognized in full view of the testimony of the witness CCC of the first instance trial, as follows: Gap, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9 through 20 (including household numbers), and Eul evidence 5-1 to 4, and the testimony of the witness CCC of the first instance trial:

[1]

〇 원고의 남편인 EEE는 원고 명의로 CCC에게 돈을 빌려주었고， CCC은 자신이 2003. 4. 29. 소유권이전등기를 마친 OO시 O구 OO동 66-14 대지에 관하여 2003. 6. 3. 채무자 CCC， 채권최고액 OOOO원， 근저당권자 원고인 근저당권설정등기를 마쳐주었다.

〇 그 후 CCC은 위 대지에 7층 규모의 DDD모텔을 건축하여 2004. 4. 1. 자신 명의로 소유권보존등기를 마친 다음 위 DDD모텔 대지에 2004. 6. 14. 채무자 CCC， 채권최고액 OOOO원， 근저당권자 원고인 근저당권설정등기를 추가로 마쳐주었고， 위 DDD모텔 건물에 관하여도 2004. 6. 14. 채무자 CCC， 근저당권자 원고인 채권 최고액 OOOO원과 OOOO원의 각 근저당권설정등기를 마쳐주었다

〇 그 후 CCC은 원고에게 위 DDD모텔에 대한 소유 지분 중 40%가 원고에게 있음을 확약한다는 내용의 서면을 작성해 주었고， 위 DDD모텔 대지 및 건물에 관하여 설정된 원고 명의의 위 각 근저당권설정등기는 2004. 6. 28. 해지를 원인으로 각 말소되었다.

〇 한편 위 DDD모텔 대지 및 건물에 관하여 2004. 6. 29. 채무자 CCC， 채권최고액 OOOO원， 근저당권자 원고인 근저당권설정등기가 경료되었다가 2004. 8. 3. 해지를 원인으로 각 말소되었다. 그 무렵 위 DDD모텔을 제3자에게 매각하는 절차가 진행되던 중 위와 같이 근저당권설정등기가 말소되었다.

〇 위 DDD모텔에 관하여는 FFF， GGG 명의의 소유권이전청구권가등기가 경료되었다가 그 후 가등기권자가 HHH으로 이전되었으나， 2005. 7.경 위 DDD모텔에 관하여 임의경매절차가 개시되어 2006. 6. 26. 주식회사 IIII저축은행에 매각되었다.

〇 원고의 남편인 EEE는 2005. 3.경 CCC을 시흥경찰서에 사기로 고소하였는데， 그 고소 내용은， 자신이 원고 명의로 CCC에게 DDD모텔 건축 공사자금으로 2004. 6. 29.경 OOOO원을 대여하면서 DDD모텔에 근저당권설정등기를 마친 바 있는데， CCC 이 EEE에게 DDD모텔을 팔아서 빌린 돈 OOOO원을 변제하여 주겠다고 하면서 그러려면 위 근저당권을 말소해야 한다고 하면서 말소를 부탁하여 원고 명의의 위 근저당권등기를 2004. 8. 3. 말소하여 주었음에도， CCC은 DDD모텔을 HHH에게 넘겨주고， HHH 소유의 OO시 OO동 1300， 1301 각 토지를 넘겨받았음에도 EEE의 돈 을 변제하지 않고 있다는 것이었다.

[2]

〇 한편 CCC은 OO시 O동 548-7， 548-8， 548-9 토지들과 관련하여， 위 548-7 토지 에 4층 규모의 주택， 위 548-8 및 548-9 토지에 3층 규모의 근린생활시설 건물을 신축한 다음 2004. 7. 7. 위 토지 및 건물들에 관하여 동생인 BBB의 명의로 각 소유권 이전등기를 마쳤고， 위 토지 및 건물들인 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 2004. 7. 8. 채무자 BBB， 채권최고액 OOOO원， 근저당권자 원고인 근저당권설정등기를 마쳐주었다.

〇 그 후 이 사건 부동산에 대해 JJJJ의 임의경매신청으로 2007. 7. 2. 임의경매절차(수원지방법원 2007타경27341)가 개시되어 2008. 4. 15. 매각되었고， 원고는 위 경매절차에서 원금 OOOO원 및 이자 OOOO원의 채권을 신고하면서 2008. 5. 13. 배당절차에서 OOOO원을 배당받았다.

[3]

〇 원고는 2008. 5. 15. CCC과 사이에 원고가 CCC에게 OOOO원을 대여한다는 내용의 금전소비대차계약 공정증서를 작성하여 공증하였다(법무법인 사명 증서 2008년 제1294호).

〇 CCC은 OO시 OO구 OO동 1300， 1301 지상에 8층 규모의 KKK 신축공사를 진행하면서 위 빌딩신축사업을 위하여 주식회사 LLLL(이하 'LLLL' 이라 한다)을 설립한 후 LLLL에 위 빌딩의 건축주 명의를 이전하고， LLLL을 실질적으로 운영하였다.

〇 원고와 CCC은 2008. 5. 15. 위와 같이 OOOO원의 금전소비대차계약 공정증서를 작 성하면서 위 KKK 준공 후 은행대출을 받아 위 OOOO원을 변제하되， 변제하지 못 할 때에는 CCC은 원고에게 완공된 위 KKK 1층 전면부 70평을 위 OOOO원 대여금의 변제에 갈음하여 양도하기로 하기로 하였다.

〇 그 후 LLLL은 2009. 7. 27. KKK을 집합건물로 하여 소유권보존등기를 마쳤고， 원고는 위 OOOO원의 대여금채권을 담보하기 위하여 2009. 7. 27. KKK의 전유부분 전부에 관하여 채권최고액 OOOO원， 채권자 원고인 근저당권설정등기를 마쳤으며， 또한 원고는 2009. 7. 30. KKK 301， 302， 303， 304호에 관하여 매매예약을 원인으로 한 소유권이전청구권가등기를 마쳤다.

〇 원고는 2010. 2. 10. 위 가등기에 기하여 KKK 301， 302， 303， 304호에 관하여 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다.

〇 LLLL은 KKK 301 내지 304호를 원고에게 매도하였는데 원고가 일부 매매대금을 지급하지 않고 있다고 주장하면서 원고를 상대로 대전지방법원 천안지원 2010가합3295호로 매매대금의 지급을 구하는 소를 제기하였다. 원고는 위 소송에서 위 OOOO원의 채권을 담보하기 위하여 위 가등기를 경료하여 두었는데， LLLL의 요청에 따라 허위로 위 가등기에 기한 본등기를 경료하게 되었을 뿐 매매계약을 체결한 것은 아니라고 주장하였다.

〇 위 소송은 2010. 9. 16.에 열린 조정기일에서， LLLL이 원고에게 2010. 12. 31.까지 7억 원을 지급하지 못할 경우 LLLL은 청구를 전부 포기하고， 원고에게 일체의 금원 청구를 하지 않기로 하는 등의 내용으로 조정이 성립함으로써 종결되었다.

〇 LLLL은 2010. 12. 31.까지 원고에게 위 조정에 따른 OOOO원을 지급하지 못하였다.

〇 한편으로 LLLL은 KKK 대지에 관하여 2009. 10. 23.자로 MMM 명의로 근저당권설정등기를 마쳐주었고， NNN이 위 근저당권을 이전받았으며， NNN은 위 근저당권에 기하여 원고가 소유권 이전등기를 마친 KKK4개 호실의 대지권 대상이 될 토지 지분에 대한 임의경매를 신청하여 그 절차에서 이를 낙찰받아 2012. 6. 21.자로 NNN 명의의 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다

C. Determination

(1) The Income Tax Act adopts the so-called principle of confirmation of rights that calculates taxable income by deeming that the realizing income is realized if the right that is the cause of income does not actually accrue even if there is no income.

However, when only a part of the principal and interest claim is recovered and it becomes objectively impossible to meet the remaining claims at the time of collection, and in private law, even if the collection source is appropriated first in accordance with the provisions on appropriation of performance, the existence of interest income under the Income Tax Act cannot be discussed regardless of the possibility of recovering the principal claim which is the source of income. Thus, if there is any remaining amount after deducting the principal from the collection source first, the interest income shall be deemed to exist within the scope of the collection (Supreme Court Decision 97Nu10369 delivered on July 24, 1998).

In addition, unlike the Corporate Tax Act, Article 51 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, unlike the Corporate Tax Act, provides no institutional device that can be reflected in the deduction item of interest income even if the loss incurred later due to the failure to recover the principal for non-business proceeds, and therefore, it appears to be a provision to prevent unjust result in imposing interest income tax, even though there is no institutional device that can be reflected in the deduction item of interest income. The above provision appears to be a provision to prevent unjust result in imposing interest income tax. The above provision provides that where the whole amount recovered until a certain cause for recovery occurs before the final return on tax base or the determination and correction of tax base and tax amount is below the principal amount, and there is no special exception, and it is difficult to discuss whether interest income under the Income Tax Act has accrued or not, taking into account the possibility of recovering the principal claim which is the source of income generated, it is difficult to discuss whether the final return on tax base of interest income from non-business proceeds or the final return on tax base and tax amount on the non-business proceeds, even if the amount recovered was actually recovered in the taxable year before such occurrence or correction.

Thus, even when a claim that is the cause of income has occurred, if it is objectively evident that the right subject to taxation becomes impossible to recover due to the debtor's bankruptcy, etc. and that there is no possibility of realizing the income in the future, income tax on such economic gains shall lose its premise, and such income shall not be imposed on taxable income; however, it shall be clearly stated that the taxpayer has no income subject to taxation by asserting and proving such circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du1536, Oct. 25, 2002).

(2) As to the instant case, the Plaintiff lent OOOO to CCC in total, and tried to acquire DDMoel and Osan mortgage on the instant real property located in the DDMoel and Osan as joint collateral for the entire property, but CCC did not lease the instant real property when the maximum amount of the mortgage claim is set too much. As such, the Plaintiff asserted that DDMoel and the instant real property were divided without joint collateral.

However, in full view of all circumstances, the right to collateral security, the sum of the maximum debt amount set up in the DDR, was terminated and cancelled before the establishment of the right to collateral security on the real estate in this case, and during that process, the plaintiff himself declared that the plaintiff would have obtained 40% of the share of DDR from CCC, and the procedure was conducted on June 29, 2004 regarding the obligation between the plaintiff on DCC and CCC, including the creation of additional right to collateral security (the maximum debt amount) and the sale procedure for third parties, and the agreement on construction works located at the time of fraud and complaint andO, and the plaintiff participated in the distribution procedure with the principal claims of the OOO members in the auction on the real estate in this case, it is difficult to recognize that the secured debt set up on the real estate in this case is limited to the leased principal principal claims, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is sufficient to deem that the secured debt set up on the real estate in this case was limited to the principal claims of the plaintiff on the real estate in this case.

Furthermore, even if there was a distribution of the instant real estate as alleged by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff had a claim higher than the CCC, which was included in the scope of non-business loans identical to the claim for distribution of the said leased principal, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s claim against KK was impossible to recover prior to the determination of the tax base and tax amount on interest income from the instant non-business loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the impossibility of recovery of the said loan, in light of the overall circumstances such as the establishment of a neighboring mortgage and provisional registration under the Plaintiff’s name with respect to KK prior to that, the establishment of provisional registration, the principal registration, mediation procedures, etc., and there is no other evidence to prove the impossibility of recovery of the said loan.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that there are additional claims belonging to the same non-business loan in addition to the claim for distribution in the distribution procedure for the real estate in this case, and that it is impossible to recover is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit in this case seeking revocation of resident tax disposition is unlawful, and it is dismissed, and the remaining claims of the plaintiff are without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.