Seoul High Court 201Nu42231 (Law No. 13, 2012)

Seocho 2010west 1748 (201.05.04)

It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the interest on loans is interest is without merit and that it is rental income.

(The main point of view is that the Plaintiff increased the deposit for lease, and the increased deposit for lease shall be lent to the lessee, but the amount of the increased deposit shall be reduced from the monthly rent by interest rate of 1% per month. However, in light of the fact that the increased deposit for lease has not been actually issued by the lease contract, and that there is no change in the monthly amount paid by the lessee even though the rent has been monthly rent or nominal reduction, it is reasonable to view it as the lease income.

2012du 17742 Value-Added Tax and Global Income and Revocation thereof.

XX Kim

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu42231 Decided July 13, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but the grounds of appeal by the appellant are not included in the grounds prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal. Thus, the appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Reference materials.

If the grounds for final appeal are not included in the grounds of appeal that make it appropriate for the court of final appeal to become a legal trial, such as matters concerning significant violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., the system of final appeal will not continue to proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final appeal, but will not proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final