(a) Whether it constitutes interest income under the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3524, Dec. 21, 1982);

(b) A person liable to pay tax on the interest income of family subject to summing up assets added to global income of the principal income earner under the former Income Tax Act (Act No. 315, Dec. 5, 1978);

A. Although the act of lending money has been about 40 occasions, if only one person lends money to 40 times as a business of lending money to unspecified persons, not as a business of claiming a payment business, but as a business of lending money, the interest income accrued from 40 persons shall not be deemed to constitute interest income as a profit from a non-business loan under Article 17 (1) 9 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1982, Dec. 21, 1982).

B. Under the provisions of Article 2(3), 80(1), and 80(3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3098, Dec. 5, 1978), only the principal income earner shall be liable to pay the interest income of a family subject to the sum of assets added to global income of the principal income earner.

Article 17(1) of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 3098, Dec. 31, 1982); Article 2(3), 80(1), and 80(3) of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 3098, Dec. 5, 1978);

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of the tax office

Daegu High Court Decision 82Gu226 delivered on May 1, 1984

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal against this appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

(1) First point

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized that Plaintiff 1 lent money and received interest as shown in the attached Tables 1 through 40 of the attached Table 1 to the judgment below, and Plaintiff 2 borrowed money and received interest as stated in the attached Table 2 of the judgment below, and determined each of the above interest income as taxable income of global income tax.

However, according to the records, the amount of interest received in the attachment list of the court below acknowledged by the court below is mainly based on the non-party 2's statement (No. 2-8) prepared by the tax official of the debtor non-party 1, who is the wife of the non-party 2, and the confirmation document (No. 21-21-2 and No. 3) of the above non-party 2's bond interest payment notice table (No. 2-2) prepared by the above non-party 2. According to the prosecutor's statement of the above non-party 2 (No. 15) among the evidence employed by the court below, it is recognized that the above non-party 2 stated in the above prosecutor's statement of the above non-party 2 prepared one month after the investigation by the above tax official from the time of the above tax official's investigation.

In other words, in the attached list 1 of the judgment of the court below, the interest received amount of 78 years, No. 4,6,11,17 and the interest received amount of 80 years is 18,19 and the interest received amount of 77 years, 20,22 and the interest received amount of 80 years and 77 years, 24, 26, 30 and 78 years, 31, 34, 30 and 80 years, 35, and 80 years, respectively, are different.

If the contents of the statement made by the same person on the interest rate or the interest received amount are different at an interval of one month from the above, either of the statements shall be deemed to be inaccurate or to be contrary to the truth. As such, the court below should determine the existence of evidence of each of the above statements and pay the correct amount of interest received after determining whether there is evidence of each of the above statements.

Nevertheless, the court below, however, recognized the amount of interest received in this case as stated in the above tax official's protocol of statement by integrating all the above evidences without covering the above difference. This is a violation of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment of evidence due to incomplete deliberation on evidence, and it is reasonable to discuss this point.

(2) Point 2 and 3

According to the facts established by the court below and the evidence of employment of the court below, although the plaintiffs' lending of funds to the non-party 1 was about 40 times, the plaintiffs did not make a business of making a loan to many and unspecified persons, but it was merely a business of making an individual loan to the above non-party 1 and acquiring the interest income. Thus, the interest income earned from the above non-party 1 is a non-business profit under Article 17 (1) 9 of the Income Tax Act (amended before December 21, 1982) which was enforced at the time of this case, and it cannot be deemed that it constitutes interest income under Article 25 of the Income Tax Act.

However, according to the provisions of Article 17 (2) of the Income Tax Act, the amount of interest income shall be the gross income amount in the year concerned, and its gross income amount shall be the interest income amount without deducting necessary expenses. Thus, the argument that the judgment below erred in incomplete deliberation and determination of necessary expenses and erroneous calculation of the amount of tax on the premise that the interest income in this case constitutes other income is without merit.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer.

According to the provisions of Article 2(3) of the Income Tax Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 3098, Dec. 5, 1978, the principal income earner under Article 80 is liable to pay tax on the property income of the family members subject to the sum of other assets. Under the provisions of Article 80(1) of the same Act, when a family member living together and has interest income among the family members subject to the sum of assets, such interest income of the family members subject to the sum of assets shall be deemed to have the principal income earner, and shall be calculated by adding it to the global income of the principal income earner. According to the provisions of Article 80(3) of the same Act, where the sum of the amount of income tax is calculated by adding it to the global income of the principal income earner under the provisions of paragraph (1) of the same Article, only the principal income earner shall be liable to pay the interest income of the family members subject to sum of other assets added to the global income of the principal income earner.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and is not erroneous in the judgment below from a different point of view.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. The defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to this part of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)

The transfer of a judge of the Supreme Court is impossible due to retirement of the judge of the Supreme Court.