Interest received under the principal among interest income, shall be excluded from the taxable income.

Where a certain reason arises that makes a final return on interest income from non-business loans or that makes it impossible to recover the principal and interest claims before determination or correction of the amount of tax, and where the collected amount falls short of the principal, such interest income shall not be subject to taxation of interest income tax even if there is an interest income actually recovered in the taxable year before the

Article 16 of the Income Tax Act

2012Guhap21307 Global income and revocation of disposition

IsaA

The director of the tax office.

April 12, 2013

April 19, 2013

1. Of the imposition of the global income tax on August 5, 201 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on 2006, the imposition of the global income tax on 2006 and the imposition of the global income tax on 2007 and the imposition of the global income tax on OOOO(including the additional tax), the imposition of the global income tax on 2008 and the imposition of the global income tax on OOOO(including the additional tax) shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 1/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of the global income tax on August 5, 201 (including additional taxes), global income tax on 2006, global income tax on 2007, global income tax on 2008, global income tax on OOO(including additional taxes), and OOO(including additional taxes) on 2009 against the Plaintiff (including any clerical error in August 25, 201) is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. On August 5, 2011, the Defendant calculated the amount of income by applying simple or standard expense rate to the amount of the return on the leased income, on the grounds that the Plaintiff omitted in filing the return on the interest income in the year 2005 through 2009 was omitted, on the grounds that the amount of the return on the interest income was determined as the total amount of income, the amount of the return on the global income tax was determined as the global income tax amount in 2005, the global income tax amount in 2006, the global income tax amount in 2007, the global income tax (including additional tax), the global income tax in 207, the global income tax in 207, the global income tax (including additional tax), the global income tax in 207, the global income tax in 209, the global income tax (including additional tax), the global income tax in 209, the global income tax in 208, the global income tax in 209, the global income tax in 2008.

B. On November 21, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an appeal, and on April 3, 2012, the Tax Tribunal decided to exclude OOO members, OO members received from MaximumD on March 10, 2006 from interest income, and OO members received from PE on October 25, 2007, and dismissed the remainder of the claims.

C. According to the decision of the Tax Tribunal, the Defendant adjusted the integrated income tax (including the additional tax) in 2006 to OOOO(including the additional tax), the integrated income tax in 2007 to OOOO(including the additional tax), and the integrated income tax in 2008 to OOO(including the additional tax). In addition, the Defendant adjusted the integrated income tax in 2008 to OOO(including the additional tax) and the integrated income tax in 2009 to the amount of OOO(including the additional tax) upon the correction of the labor income. The Defendant adjusted the amount of the integrated income tax in 209 (including the additional tax) by applying the standard cost rate to the housing rental income to OOO(including the first revised portion of the global income tax (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition], Gap evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 9, 1 through 4, 7, and 8 (including the whole number of pleadings).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Lease income;

In the case of rental income in 2006, 2007, and 2008, the amount of estimated income was calculated according to the estimation despite evidence of necessary expenses, and in the case of rental income in 2009, the standard expense rate was not applied even though it was estimated.

(2) Interest income;

“GG Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “GG”) has defaulted before the initial disposition, and the interest paid therefrom falls short of the principal, so interest income for them is not subject to taxation.”

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Acquisition of the instant officetels

On September 15, 2006, the Plaintiff concluded an exchange contract with Kim H as follows.

○ Indication of real estate

- The Plaintiff’s description of the goods: 620 square meters in five parcels, including OO-dong 598-2, O-gu O-dong, O-dong, etc.

- A description of the article of Kim H

“The instant officetel, loan; OOOO(IIB Bank (II Bank), security deposit; OOOO, monthly rent; OOOOOO, 2OOOO-2, OO-2, 87-2, and OO-2; J bank's OO-2, and OO-2.

○ Terms and Conditions of Contract

The plaintiff shall pay the exchange difference OOO on the part of Kim H, and the down payment OOOOO on the exchange contract date, and the remainder OOOOO on October 14, 2006 shall be paid respectively.

(b)electric charges, water rates, property taxes, and elevator maintenance and repair costs;

“With respect to the instant officetel, the Plaintiff’s electric utility charge in the table 2 below:

Water Rates

Property tax

Elevator maintenance and repair cost means cost as stated in bad faith, ...............................

(3) Interest on bank loans and insurance loans;

(A) On July 26, 2002, with respect to the instant officetel, the establishment registration of a mortgage was completed with respect to the motive for establishing a mortgage and the maximum debt amount set up by the debtor K K, and the maximum debt amount set up by the debtor. The establishment registration of a mortgage of the OOOwon was changed to KimL on the ground of the debtor’s acceptance of the contract on July 6, 2004, and was changed to the plaintiff on January 17, 2007, and the maximum debt amount was changed to the KRW OOO on January 29, 2010. The establishment registration of a mortgage of the OOOwon was cancelled on January 29, 2010.

(B) The Plaintiff, on January 4, 2007, took over the obligation of the Plaintiff to the second bank of KimL, and repaid the remainder on January 11, 201, and paid interest as stated in the column for interest on bank loans in the table 2." (C) The Plaintiff, on December 27, 2006, took out the loans from the MM Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “M”), with the amount of OO's own account, deposited the amount of OO's cashier's cashier's checks with the same day. (d) On January 3, 2007, the Plaintiff paid the OO's registration fee for the instant officetel to the Plaintiff under the name of the Plaintiff on January 3, 2007.

(e) At the time of the exchange contract, the Court directly confirmed that the obligations of the instant officetel loans are OOOO in the second bank at the time of the exchange contract.According to the position of the second bank, the Plaintiff received a partial loan and succeeded to the remainder of the loans. The Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff was aware that the loans have been granted by MM, and (iv) building manager’s benefits have been paid.

On June 12, 2012, PP prepared and issued a confirmation document that the Plaintiff served as the manager in the instant officetel from November 2006 to December 2009, and received the OOOO as a monthly salary. The PP testified testified in this court as follows.

○ The Plaintiff and Kim H H mediated an exchange contract.

○ The Plaintiff was unable to perform his duties due to childcare problems, so he was in charge of the rental management and paid a monthly salary, but did not report taxes.

○ From November 2006 to December 2009, the instant officetel officially managed the instant officetel, and was also managed until around August 201, 2010. During the management period, the office of real estate located in OO-dong as a brokerage assistant.

Although ○ tenant was changed from time to time, it was argued that ○ tenant was seeking a tenant by advertising in his/her daily life information or returning to the neighboring real estate brokerage office in order to seek a new tenant.

When ○ himself was in the lessee, he prepared a lease contract in the presence of the Plaintiff. The lease contract that he directly handled is more than half of the entire lease contract.

On the other hand, the contact requesting repair, parking management, etc. from the lessee has been left to the person who directly solves or repairs the contact.

4-5 times a week in the instant officetel. The instant officetel also requires 30 minutes to the subway and 30 minutes to the subway.

○ Brokerage Assistants shall not be paid monthly, and 70% out of the brokerage fees shall be paid if the real estate brokerage requested by him/her has become a real estate intermediary.

(5) Interest income;

(A) The Plaintiff leased OOOE to GangwonF. After that, the Plaintiff received the interest of OOOOE from 2006 to 2008, and received dividends from OOOE 168-4 land and buildings on August 13, 2010 during the voluntary auction procedure on land and buildings owned by GangwonF. The Plaintiff did not recover the principal amount of OOE (i.e., principal amount - interest - OOOOE - dividend dividend - OOOOE - even after deducting the interest and dividend.

(나) 원고는 GG에 OOOO원을 대여하였다. 그 후 원고는 2008년 OOOO원, 2009년 OOOO원을 수령하였고, 이자를 공제하고도 원금 OOOO원(= 원금 OOOO원 - 이자 OOOO원 - 이자 OOOO원)을 회수하지 못하였다. GG 소유의 OO시 OO구 OO동 88-4 QQQ빌 12세대에 관한 임의경매절차가 진행 중에 있으나, 2010. 1.경 및 2012. 7.경 최저매각가격은 선순위 담보권자, 국세교부권자, 일반채권자의 채권합계액에 미치지 못하므로, 원고에게 배당될 가능성이 없다.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, evidence Nos. 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15 (including paper numbers), evidence Nos. 5 and 6, witness Cho Jong-P's testimony, testimony outside this court, MaM outside this court, II banks, RR Savings Bank, and SS Savings Bank, the purport of the whole arguments, as a result of the fact inquiry, and the purport of the whole arguments.

D. Determination

(1) As to the lease income

(a)electric charges, water charges, property charges, and elevator maintenance and repair charges;

According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff’s electric charges on the instant officetels 2.

Water Rates

Property tax

The elevator maintenance and repair cost of the elevator spent the same money as the stated above, the electricity charges, etc. are the necessary expenses corresponding to the rental income of the officetel of this case, and (b) interest on bank loans.

In light of the terms and conditions of the exchange contract, the entry of the real estate register of the instant officetel, the details of the loan transactions of the II bank, etc., the Plaintiff acquired OOO members from among the OO members of the instant officetel in lieu of the exchange difference, and paid interest as indicated in the column of the "interest on loans of the medium bank", the interest on bank loans constitutes the necessary expense corresponding to the instant officetel rental income."

According to the above facts, it is recognized that the plaintiff extended the OOO's cashier's checks from MM on December 27, 2006 to its own account on the same day, the plaintiff paid the OOO's cashier's checks from the face value on January 4, 2007, the plaintiff repaid the OO's loans to the second bank acquired from KimL on January 4, 2007, the KOP stated that this court shall not have paid the OO's won out of the loans extended by the plaintiff for the instant officetel, the plaintiff paid the OO's registration expenses for the instant officetel on January 207, 207, and the KOP prepared the receipt of the OO's receipt of the officetel's brokerage fees in this case on January 3, 2007.

However, there is no way to verify that loans, the instant officetel registration expenses and brokerage fees have been paid by cashier's checks, the statement of the ChoP is merely a conjecture, and the Plaintiff had considerable re-refluence, such as lending OO members from 2005 to 2009, and thus, there is a possibility that it was used for other purposes. In light of such fact, it is difficult to deem that the insurance loans were used as the instant officetel acquisition fund solely on the basis of such recognition.

(d) Building Manager’s benefits

The confirmation document of PPP is recognized that it was prepared 20 days before the filing date of the instant suit ( July 3, 2012) and that there is no gold transaction that the PP receives OOO from the Plaintiff every month.

However, in light of the following facts: “The Plaintiff did not have experience in the officetel rental business as a family owner at the time of acquiring the instant officetel; the instant officetel is 33 buildings; thus, it is necessary to conclude and terminate the lease contract; refund of deposits; settlement of rent; demand of the lessee; etc.; to seek a new lessee; it is also necessary to deal with advertisements or request for lease brokerage to seek a new lessee; it is also necessary to operate an advertisement or lease brokerage; the current office works as a real estate intermediary for a long time; the current office works as a real estate intermediary; the instant officetel is concurrently able to serve as an office assistant due to the characteristics of the business as a real estate brokerage assistant; and the office’s duties cannot be deemed excessive, it is reasonable to deem that the current officetel manages the instant officetel; and the payment of benefits as stated in the column of the “building manager’s benefits”. Accordingly, the payment of benefits by a building manager constitutes necessary expenses corresponding to the rental income of the instant officetel; and the illegality of estimated investigation.

In principle, the tax base and tax amount of global income tax shall be determined by the actual amount revealed by the method of the on-site investigation. In order to determine it by the method of the estimation investigation, it is exceptionally allowed only when there is no taxpayer’s account books or documentary evidence, etc., or when there is no other method by which the tax authorities can disclose the actual amount of income due to lack of credibility or lack of credibility by making false entries (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du915, Oct. 8, 199).

As above, the necessary expenses corresponding to the rental income of the instant officetel may be recognized, the calculation of the amount of rental income arising from the estimated survey is unlawful.

(2) As to interest income

(A) Unlike the Corporate Tax Act, Article 51(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010) provides that the income tax shall be imposed on the Plaintiff’s financial income, inasmuch as there is no institutional device that can be reflected in the deduction item of interest income even if the loss was incurred later due to the failure to recover the principal amount for non-business income, and it is ultimately a provision to prevent unfair result in imposing interest income tax. The above provision provides that where the total amount collected by the time the cause for impossibility of collection occurred before the final return on tax base or the determination or rectification of tax base and tax amount is below the principal amount, and there is no special exception. In full view of the following, it is difficult to discuss whether there was an interest income under the Income Tax Act, which is the source of income from interest income, the final return on tax base of non-business income or the determination or rectification of tax amount before the determination or rectification of the principal and interest amount, it shall be deemed that the amount is not collected until 20.

(B) According to the facts of the foregoing recognition, the Plaintiff received interest from Gangnam and GG, but Gangnam and GG were in an impossible condition due to compulsory enforcement before August 5, 201, the date of the instant disposition, and the interest falls short of the principal. Thus, the interest income received from Gangnam and GG from Gangnam from 2005 to 2009 is not subject to taxation.

(3) Scope of revocation

"Interest on Medium Insurance Loans in Schedule 2" shall be deducted from the necessary expenses and excluded from the income subject to interest income on Gangnam and GG from 2005 to 2009, the amount of legitimate tax shall be as listed below 3 - OOO won, 2007, OOOO won in 2008, 2008, and OOO won in 2009 (in accordance with Article 47 (1) of the Management of the National Funds Act, less than 10 won shall not be included). Accordingly, the imposition disposition of global income tax in 2006 and the imposition disposition of global income tax in 2007, the imposition disposition of OO won in global income tax in 207, the imposition disposition of global income tax in 207, the imposition disposition of OO won in global income tax in 208, the imposition disposition of global income tax in excess of the global income tax in 209 (including additional tax), and the imposition disposition of O tax in excess of 2009.

Table 3. Statement of Tax Amount of Political Party - see Decision 11

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.