2012 Heavy 4603 ( December 28, 2012)

It is reasonable to view that an agreement to settle at the time of sale was specified as the payment date of interest.

Although the date of payment of interest is not specified, it is reasonable to view that the interest is settled when the period of loan expires due to the sale of land as the date of payment of interest, and it is reasonable to deem that the agreed terms and conditions at the time of sale are specified in the agreement to the extent that it can be known that the interest income is attributed to a certain taxable period.

2013Guhap2793 global income and revocation of disposition

KimA

The superintendent of the tax office

October 10, 2013

October 24, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the global income tax OOOO for the Plaintiff on September 7, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 19, 2008, the Plaintiff received dividends from the Daegu District Court about the 196-1 large 3,920 square meters and the 196-4 large 949 square meters of each of the instant lands (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) from the debtor and the owner of the BB collateral security right, as the debtor and the owner of the BB collateral security right, as the maximum debt amount, out of the total debt amount reported to the OOO of the 196-1 large 3,920 square meters and the 196-4 large 949 square meters of each of the instant lands (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On February 19, 2008, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff received the interest income of the said OOOOO members on the dividend income; and (b) on September 7, 2012, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of the OOO members of the global income tax for the global income tax for the year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 17, 2012, and the said appeal was dismissed on December 28, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) On February 19, 2008, ParkCC and MadD filed an objection against the Plaintiff’s dividend on the date of distribution of the instant auction case, and the Defendant imposed tax on the basis of the distribution schedule before the correction was made, even though the distribution schedule was corrected lawfully by the first instance court and the appellate court after filing a lawsuit of demurrer against the Plaintiff.

(2) According to a loan certificate drawn up by the Plaintiff and AB, the date of interest payment is not specified accurately. Thus, the Plaintiff’s receipt of interest income shall be deemed as July 10, 2009 upon receipt of the dividends for auction actually deposited by the Plaintiff.

(b) Related statutes;

(1) The former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009)

Article 16 (Interest Income)

(1) Interest income shall be the following income generated during the relevant year:

12. Profits accruing from a non-business loan;

(2) The interest income amount shall be the gross income amount during the relevant year.

(3) Matters necessary for the scope of interest income under the provisions of each subparagraph of paragraph (1) and interest income amount under paragraph (2) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(1) The former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21301 of Feb. 4, 2009)

Article 45 (Receipt Date of Interests)

The receipt date of the total amount of interest income shall be the following dates:

9-2. The date of payment of interest under an agreement on non-business profits: Provided, That in cases where no agreement is made on the date of payment of interest, or interest is paid before the payment of interest is made pursuant to the agreement, or where interest excluded from the calculation of gross income pursuant to Article 51 (7) is paid, it shall

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) While performing new housing construction works on each of the instant lands, EE received each of the following payments from OOOO(OOOOOwon + loan OOOOOO won + loan OOOOOO won) and OOOOOO(loan OOOOO won) from PED.

(2) However, as the shortage of funds and the revocation of a building permit became impossible to continue the construction, the EE confirmed the leased principal as the principal by converting each sales price into loans between ParkCC and ADD, and by adding each OOO or OOD (in the case of AOD, the amount corresponding to the interest accrued up to that time to the principal).

(3) After the commencement of the voluntary auction procedure on February 20, 202 with respect to each of the instant lands on the basis of the request for auction by the National Bank, a mortgagee, the right to collateral security, and the commencement of the auction procedure on February 20, 2002, EE seeks cooperation from the Plaintiff, a person who is one’s own form, to whom the successful bidder was awarded in order to obtain a loan from a financial institution, to whom the successful bidder was awarded a successful bidder. On October 17, 2002, EE proposed that ParkCC and ED will receive 1/7 shares of each of the instant lands from each of the instant lands for the purpose of securing each of the loans identified earlier, and that the Plaintiff, ABB, ParkCC, and HD were awarded a successful bid for each of the instant lands in the name of OD.

(4) On December 10, 2002, EE, the Plaintiff, and AB borrowed the Plaintiff from FFF Agricultural Cooperatives (hereinafter “FFFFFFFF agricultural cooperatives”) as the principal debtor, the Plaintiff as the principal debtor, the AB, the AFCC, and the AD as the joint guarantor, and the AB borrowed AB as the principal debtor, the Plaintiff, the AFCC, and the AD as the joint guarantor.

(5) On December 10, 2002, in full payment of the successful bid price, the portion 4/7 of each of the instant lands was registered under the name of AB as to the portion of each of the instant lands, each of the Plaintiff, ParkCC, and YD as to each of the share transfer rights in the names of AB. In order to secure each of the above loans, FFFFC had completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as “the first right to collateral security”) with the obligor as the Plaintiff, the obligor as OOOB, and the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as “the second right to collateral security”) with the maximum debt amount as OOOB as the obligor.

(6) After that, as interest on each of the above loans was unable to be repaid at once, the Plaintiff received additional loans from the OOOOB and the OB repaid overdue interest on each of the loans.

(7) Meanwhile, AB borrowed 4/7 shares in each of the instant land from the Plaintiff as the mortgagee, debtorB, and maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the “third-mortgage”) on December 10, 2002 with respect to the establishment registration of the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the “third-mortgage”) with respect to the share of 4/7 shares in the instant land as the mortgagee, debtorB, and maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the “third-mortgage”) on December 10, 2004.

(8) However, when interest on FFFFFF loans has been in arrears, FFFFFFFC applied for a voluntary auction based on the 2-mortgage (a dispute auction case) and was awarded a successful bid to YG, and paid out the amount of OOE which deducts the execution cost from the successful bid price. OOOE was distributed to POE and PED as each surplus of each of the instant lands, and the Plaintiff paid to the Plaintiff the remainder of 1/7 shares in each of the instant lands and the remainder of 1/7 shares in each of the instant lands and the maximum amount of OOE owned by 4/7 shares in the 3-mortgage owned by AB, including the maximum amount of OOE claim in each of the instant lands and the maximum amount of 4/7 shares in each of the instant lands. OOE was distributed, and OE did not have any surplus distributed in excess of the amount of the creditors’ share in the claim amount.

(9) ParkCC and MaD filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution after filing an objection to the total amount of the Plaintiff’s dividends in the auction at issue, and the Daegu District Court deposited the amount of dividends on the third collateral security (OOO) in the deposit.

(10) On June 11, 2008, during the course of the lawsuit of demurrer against the said distribution, ParkCC, ADD changed the existing purport of the claim for revision of the distribution schedule to ParkCC, MadD on June 11, 2008, into the content of the claim for payment of OOO(OOOO, OOOOB on the claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff) and damages for delay. In addition, the cause of the claim also changed to the content of the claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff of AB, AB subrogated to AB, the insolvent, as the creditor of the claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff and the claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff of AB on the claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff (an OOB had the Plaintiff as to the secured claim of the 1-mortgage collateral).

(11) On October 28, 2008, the first instance court of the lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution (Seoul District Court 2008Gahap2016), accepted the claim for reimbursement by ParkCC and DaDD, and rendered a judgment that the Plaintiff would pay OOOOO and its delay damages to each of the POOOOOD on October 28, 2008, and the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2008Na1090) accepted the claim for reimbursement subrogated by the POB on June 12, 2009, and rendered a judgment that each of the plaintiff would revoke the part against POOO and its delay damages, and the above judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

(12) On July 9, 2009, the Plaintiff, ABB, LCC, and AD submitted the above agreement to the Daegu District Court on July 10, 2009, which was distributed to the Plaintiff as a mortgagee, and the OOOOOOOOO directors of the Daegu High Court 2008Na1090 decided to receive each OOOO crew member as the principal and interest of the judgment of demurrer against distribution, litigation costs, etc., and the remaining OOOOOO directors who were distributed as a surplus to the Plaintiff as the owner and the remaining OOOO directors of the Plaintiff. On July 10, 2009, the said agreement was submitted, and the Plaintiff paid each OOOO members among the deposited dividend amount to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3 and 4, the result of commission of document delivery to the Daegu District Court of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Whether taxation disposition based on the distribution schedule of February 19, 2008 is unlawful or not

ParkCC and DaD filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Plaintiff’s dividends, but during the lawsuit, the purport of the claim was revised to seek reimbursement of reimbursement, and the judgment was rendered to the Plaintiff to pay reimbursement and delayed payment damages. After which the judgment was followed, the fact that the Plaintiff and ParkCC, GDD and AB agreed to pay the dividend amount by dividing it into the corresponding amount, and that the deposit was paid out pursuant to the above agreement. In light of the result of inquiry with the Daegu District Court, the distribution schedule as of February 19, 2008 was revised twice on December 18, 2009 and January 20, 2010, which was revised twice, but it was not corrected by the Plaintiff’s 20O as of January 18, 2010 because it was corrected as of December 18, 2009 and each of them was distributed additionally to the Plaintiff, and thus, it was not acknowledged that the Plaintiff was paid with dividends of 20O 200,000 won.

(2) Time of receipt of interest income;

Article 45 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21301 of Feb. 4, 2009) provides for the receipt time of income by type of interest income, and Article 9-2 of the former Enforcement Decree provides that the interest income, which is a non-business loan, is the receipt date of each interest payment date if there is no agreement as to the payment date of interest, if there is no agreement as to the payment date of interest.

According to the evidence No. 2 of this case, since interest income of 20.10 and 20.10 on December 10, 2003 prepared between the plaintiff and 20.10, and each of the loan certificates (No. 2,4) dated December 10, 2005 is calculated and settled at the time of sale as 2% per month, interest income of 10.2% per each of the loan certificates (No. 2, No. 1, 2002) and 10.20% per each of the loan certificates dated December 10, 204, and the interest payment period of 10.2% per each of the loan certificates is 10% per annum and 20% per each of the loan certificates, and it can be viewed that the interest payment period of 20.2% per each of the loan certificates was 10% per annum and 201.20% per each of the loan certificates.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.