No evidence, such as a loan of funds, and the amount received as a reward shall be taxed as other income.

The original disposition that is imposed on the amount of money received as other income by treating it as a honorarium because it is difficult to present evidence of the fact of lending funds that can be seen as collecting the amount of money, and is seen in the location where the honorarium can be received.

2012Revocation of disposition of imposing corporate tax, etc.

1.A 2.B of a stock company

The Director of Gangnam District Office

June 7, 2013

August 16, 2013

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the corporate tax belonging to the business year 2006 against Plaintiff AA (hereinafter “Plaintiff AA”) on April 1, 201 is revoked. The imposition of the global income tax corresponding to the global income tax attributed to Plaintiff BB on April 19, 2011 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff AA is a company that imports golfcar parts and golf course management equipment parts from Japan and sells them to Korea, and Plaintiff BB is the representative director of the above company.

B. On October 14, 2008, through April 30, 2009, the director of the Namyang District Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on CCC (hereinafter referred to as “CC”), and during that process, he was the representative director of EE (hereinafter referred to as “EE”) of the company with the business rights of DD golf course (hereinafter referred to as “the instant golf course”), and on July 20, 2006, the FFF, the actual representative of CCC who acquired the instant golf course business rights from EE, confirmed the payment of OOOB to Plaintiff BB on July 20, 206, and notified the Defendant of other income taxation data, while the Defendant confirmed that Plaintiff BB lent OOO to FF and received only OB from FF, and did not grant a separate taxation disposition by recognizing Plaintiff BB’s explanation.

C. Meanwhile, from August 30, 2010 to February 20, 2011, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a personal integrated investigation with respect to the Plaintiff BB, and in the process, unlike the details explained to the Defendant by the Plaintiff BB, the part of the Plaintiff BB’s receipt of funds from the FF on July 20, 2006, which makes it possible to verify the Plaintiff BB’s loan by using objective data such as financial evidence, etc., is only OOB, and the remainder of the amount, which is the representative director of the FF, OE (hereinafter referred to as “the first issue amount”) should be deemed to have collected the goods payment claim, etc. on the EE which the Plaintiff AA acquired bad debt in the business year 201, and the Defendant did not notify Plaintiff BB of the amount of 10O’s loan to the Defendant for the business year of 200,000,000,000 won for the business year of 20,016.

D. In addition, on April 19, 2011, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office notified the Defendant of the other income tax data by deeming that the Plaintiff BB had been paid the rewards that the Plaintiff BB had attempted to engage in FF and received, and then notified the Defendant of the other income tax data by adding the issues of the second case to the amount of global income belonging to the Plaintiff BB in 2006 as other income on April 19, 201, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff B of the global income tax amount corresponding to the global income amount belonging to the year 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “disposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of global income tax of this case”), and the disposition of imposition of the corporate tax of this case and the global income tax of this case, both of the disposition of imposition of imposition of imposition of the global income tax of this case.

E. Plaintiff AA, while Plaintiff BB, was dissatisfied with the instant disposition of global income tax, filed an appeal on May 6, 201, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed Plaintiff BB’s appeal on January 4, 2012, and on January 5, 2012, Plaintiff AA’s appeal was dismissed.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-satiscing facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, and 6 (each number includes several numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant disposition was unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) Although the FF stated that it was the personal loan of Plaintiff BB by the FF, and the part on the repayment of the debt to Plaintiff BB among the OOO members paid to Plaintiff BB, and without clear criteria for the part on the repayment of the debt to Plaintiff AB and the part on the repayment of the debt to Plaintiff AB, Plaintiff AA imposed the tax on the first issue amount on the sole ground that there was a bad debt depreciation on the ledger and the preceding table of the account for the business year 2001 of Plaintiff AA, only on the grounds that there was a bad debt depreciation on the part of Plaintiff AA for the business year 2001. The corporate tax disposition of this case was imposed on the sole basis of a remote trend only without any ground, and thus is unlawful.

(2) The Plaintiff BB’s receipt of the FF’s money and FF’s personal credit from the FF’s personal credit, such as the reimbursement by Plaintiff BB on behalf of the FF, and Plaintiff BB does not receive any reward from the FF in connection with the golf course business, golf course business, and golf course business, etc. Even if not, the amount that Plaintiff BB received from the FF should be deemed to be not the “compensation” under Article 21(1)17 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006, and hereinafter “Income Tax Act”). Accordingly, the instant disposition imposing global income tax on another premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) FF was the president of GG to the south of HH, the founder of the GGG (hereinafter “GGG”), and was the representative director of the EE with the business rights of the instant golf course owned by GG, and was the actual representative of the CCC who acquired the instant golf course business rights from the EE.

(2) Since around 1997, GGG, the parent company, has defaulted on the wind, and at that time, the Plaintiff AA bears the obligations of the POOOO and the POOOOO of the purchase price of unpaid equipment.

(3) On December 31, 1998, Plaintiff AA dealt with the settlement of accounts on the part of Plaintiff JJB’s debt against Plaintiff JJB on the part of the Plaintiff JB on the part of the Plaintiff JB on the part of the Plaintiff JB on the part of the settlement of accounts (However, the COOB was reduced on December 31, 1998 and again included in the defaulted bill account on December 31, 2001) and on December 31, 2001, the COOOB was recovered from the defaulted bill on EE, and the OOOB was reduced from the settlement of accounts in substitution of the advance payment, and the OOB was reduced from the bad debt of the defaulted bill on December 31, 201.

(4) On the other hand, K 2, which is a collateral security right of the site of this case, to collect loans from 20OOOO won, CE had been decided to grant voluntary auction capital from the above court on January 30, 1998, with the Suwon District Court Decision 98 Ma1404, which had been held by 26OOO. The judgment of 207, which became final and conclusive on January 22, 1999, CE had been held by 307, and 200, which became final and conclusive on January 27, 199, and 300, which became final and conclusive on January 27, 199. The 206, which became final and conclusive on the bid date of 190, and 3OM had been transferred to 300,0000, which became final and conclusive on the bid date of this case to obtain the ownership of the instant golf course from 200,000,000 won.

(5) Accordingly, CCC applied for a provisional injunction against MM to seek a prohibition of operation of the instant golf course, etc. by the Suwon District Court (2006Kahap268). On July 20, 2006, CCC and EE were paid out of MM to CCC (creditors), MM (debtors), and EE (Mediations). At the same time, CCC and EE agreed to transfer all rights owned by CCC and EE to MM with respect to the instant golf course. MM paid OO members to CCC and EE by July 20, 2006.

(6) On July 20, 2006, FF paid OOE out of the amount received from Plaintiff BB as above from MM.

(7) As a result of the tax investigation with respect to the CCC, the director of the Namyang District Tax Office, after deducting OOOO from the amount of debt repayment, such as accounts payable, from the amount of the instant golf course business right transfer proceeds, imposed bonus on FF, the actual representative of CCC, and notified the Defendant of other income taxation data on the OOOB received by the Plaintiff BB.

(8) The Defendant demanded the Plaintiff BB to vindicate the amount of KRW 3 billion received from the FF, and the Plaintiff BB made a separate taxation by recognizing the content of the Plaintiff BB’s vindication as follows: (a) the Plaintiff BB paid and accepted the Plaintiff BB’s loans, etc. on behalf of the EE; and (b) the Plaintiff BB paid and settled the bonds and debts that the Plaintiff BB directly lent to the FF; and (c) the Defendant did not impose a separate taxation by recognizing the contents of the Plaintiff BB’s vindication.

○ In the course of the business year from 1997 to 1998, when Plaintiff AA’s failure to recover the outstanding amount of funds and goods leased to EE, Plaintiff BB repaid the outstanding amount of KRW 1.1 billion on behalf of Plaintiff AA in the business year 1998, and repaid the outstanding amount of non-performing loans and the non-performing loans acquired from Plaintiff AA in lieu of Plaintiff AA in 2001, and combined the non-performing loans acquired from Plaintiff AA in lieu of 1.1 billion won on behalf of Plaintiff AA in 2001 and owned OOE’s claims against EE.

○ In addition, the BB, separately from November 1, 1999 to early 200, borrowed OOB from FF, but did not recover, and did not recover pride.

○ Accordingly, the sum of non-performing loans and the acquisition amount of non-performing loans has not been recovered by OOOO members, and such failure is collected by OOO members.

(9) However, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office revealed that in the course of conducting an individual integrated investigation against Plaintiff BB, Plaintiff BB was not a part of the contents of the disease against the Defendant as follows.

As a result of the confirmation of whether the plaintiff BB's non-performing loans was acquired by the president of the account of the plaintiff AB in 1998, the OOOOOB confirmed that the claims that the plaintiff AA should receive from the EE and the claims that the plaintiff AA should pay to the plaintiff BB have been disposed of by offsetting the claims that the plaintiff AA should pay to the plaintiff BB is consistent with the explanation of

○ It is completely different from the Plaintiff AA’s 2001 verification of the president and the preceding table of the defaulted bill account, and it is confirmed that the default bill was the sales proceeds collected in substitution for the OOO, advance settlement, and the OOO members have been reduced due to bad debt depreciation of insolvent bills, and that the Plaintiff BB took over the non-performing loan O members of the Plaintiff AA.

○ The portion that Plaintiff BB leased KRW OB to FF upon receipt of a bill from November 1, 1999 to early 2000 was insufficient to present objective data, such as financial evidence remitting funds.

The portion that the Fund was not recovered from May 2006 to November 2006 is found to have been repaid to the Plaintiff on July 25, 2006 by the FF’s agent by the FF’s “AA bill discount” and “the details of the Fund expenditure in 2006,” and it is found that the FF repaid the FF to the Plaintiff AA on July 25, 2006. This is different from the original content of the Plaintiff BB’s explanation.

(10) 이에 대하여 원고 BBB은 2010. 10. 21. 서울지방국세청에 아래 표와 같이 2차 소명서를 제출하였고， 서울지방국세청은 원고 BBB과 그 개인비서인 QQQ， FFF， FFF의 대리인인 PPP， FFF의 개인비서인 RRR의 금융계좌에 대한 금융추적조사 등을 통하여 위 소명자료를 분석하였는데， 그 결과 ① 1998 사업연도 원고 AAA의 계정별 원장에 의하여 확인되는， 원고 AAA이 EEE로부터 받아야 하는 채권과 원고 AAA이 원고 BBB에게 지급하여야 하는 채무를 상계하여 처리한 OOOO원，② 원고 BBB이 2005. 11. 28. FFF의 대리인인 PPP의 계좌로 입금한 OOOO원，③ 원고 BBB의 개인비서 QQQ이 1999. 6. 1. FFF의 개인비서 RRR의 계좌로 입금한 OOOO원 등 합계 OOOO원 이외에는 원고 BBB이 FFF에게 대여하였다고 볼 만한 금융거래가 존재하지 않았다.

No.

Details of vindication

Amount

Documentary evidence

Results

1

BB Account by withdrawing cash and cash by cashier’s checks from the BB Account and lending funds to FF

OOO

BB Submissions only of the description of transactions from which the amount is deposited;

84 million won shall be transferred by a financial institution to SS other than FF for non-verification replys such as slips and the issuance of checks (the progress of the document preservation management period), and for OOO members.

2

FF Lending money to its own account (FF deposits into its own account)

OOO

FF Account of the relevant amount deposited in the FF account

No confirmation of deposit slip is available

3

BBB 개인비서 QQQ이 FFF의 개인비서 RRR의 계좌에 입금하여 자금대여

OOO

QQQ 명의로 입금된 RRR 계좌 거래내역

(B) is deemed to be a loan of funds by BB.

4

BB Loans by remitting SS to FF by a debtor of the BB to F;

OOO

PP account transactions deposited in the name of SS

AA on July 25, 2006 (other than BBB’s personal loan loan)

5

BB Loans to FF by R

OOO

Deposit slips after the expiration of the preservation period

Deposit in the account by cashier's checks;

Non-verification Price

6

BB Loans to FF by the PP to its own account

PP Account Description

on July 24, 2008, which is unrelated to the funds repaid on July 20, 2006

7

Cash Loans

Evidence None

It is alleged that a loan is a unconstitutional loan without evidence, and it cannot be recognized as a loan.

8

BB Repayment on behalf of FF personal debt

Evidence None

No evidence, and the completion of the repayment on July 25, 2006 to the Plaintiff AA (other than the Plaintiff BB’s personal loan loan)

9

Set-off of Non-issuance Promissory Notes

Plaintiff AA president of the business year 1998

As a result of the verification of the Director of the Plaintiff AA in the business year 1998, it is confirmed that the said corporation offsets the obligations against the Plaintiff BB.

Total

(11) On January 31, 201, Plaintiff BB submitted to the Seoul Regional Tax Office the third supporting statement, as set out below, and Plaintiff BB claimed that it lent OB funds to FF and that it did not constitute taxable income, but did not present objective evidence.

Net

Period

Amount

Grounds

1

From 1995 to 1997

OOO

FF required funds related to open golf courses

2

From 1999 to 2000

OOO

F personal circumstances of FF and financing for corporate rehabilitation;

3

From 2005 to 2006

OOO

Loans necessary for the litigation of the project right to the site development project;

4

1998

OOO

AA’s replacement of part of the default bills by the OOO members of the EE;

Consolidateds

OOO

(12) Meanwhile, Plaintiff BB provided much help in the FF golf course project by informing the FF of the construction of the golf course, passing along with the field studies in Japan, and allowing the designer of the golf course global and wise to design the instant golf course.

(13) On the basis of the notarial deed on the promissory note issued by the EE through Plaintiff AA on December 10, 1998, Plaintiff BB applied for the attachment and assignment order of the claim to the FF on September 10, 2004 by requesting the KE’s issuance of the claim attachment and assignment order to the KE’s other creditors of the EE upon the above court’s error to prevent the second attachment of the claim under the EE’s above claim, and thereafter, the claim attachment and assignment order was used as evidentiary materials when the payment was settled on July 20, 2006 between the CCC and the EE and the MM as seen in the above paragraph (5).

(14) On July 20, 2006, Plaintiff BB entered into an agreement on the cost of transfer of the instant golf course business right between TT and FF, which is the actual owner of MM, and the place where the agreement was finally reached was the office of Plaintiff BB near the OOdong OOO Center.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-speed facts, Gap 1, 2, 4, 5, and 10, and Eul 4 and 5 (including the number in each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Whether the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of this case is legitimate

(1) 먼저 원고들은， 원고 BBB이 2006. 7. 20. FFF로부터 지급받은 OOOO원이 원고 BBB이 FFF에게 개인적으로 대여한 금원등을 정리하여 회수한 것이라는 취지로 주장하였으므로 살피건대, ① 원고 BBB이 주장하는 대여금의 액수가 상당한 거액임에도 불구하고 원고 BBB과 FFF 사이에 금전대역에 대한 처분문서가 작성되지 않은 점，② 서울지방국세청이 원고 BBB과 그 개인비서인 QQQ， FFF， FFF의 대리인인 PPP， FFF의 개인비서인 RRR의 금융계좌에 대한 금융추적조사 등을 통하여 밝혀낸 BBB의 개인비서 QQQ이 1999. 6. 1. FFF의 개인비서 RRR의 계좌로 입금한 OOOO원과 원고 BBB이 2005. 11. 28. FFF의 대리인인 RRR의 계좌로 입금한 OOOO원 이외에는 원고 BBB과 FFF 사이에 원고 BBB이 주장하는 바와 같은 금전대여가 있었다는 점을 뒷받침할 만한 금융증빙 등 객관적인 자료가 제출되지 않은 점，③ 서울지방국세청이 인정한 원고 BBB의 FFF에 대

In light of the fact that Plaintiff BB’s claims against Plaintiff BB and claims against Plaintiff JJ Bank against Plaintiff BB, not based on the actual payment of money to FF, but on the settlement of accounts, Plaintiff BB’s claims against the EE of Plaintiff BB. The contents of the vindication submitted by Plaintiff BB to the Defendant and Seoul regional tax office are different, and that the results of the Seoul regional tax office’s investigation reveal that substantial falsity is false.

(2) On the other hand, according to the above facts, and around 1997, Plaintiff AA had an OOE’s default bill claim against Plaintiff BE, and on December 31, 1998, it was offset against Plaintiff JB’s claim against Plaintiff JBB, and on December 31, 2001, it was recovered from OOB as of December 31, 2001, and the OOB was settled as an advance payment, and eventually, it was reasonable that Plaintiff AA used OB’s bad debt to be collected against E, and that it was reasonable to view that the FF included Plaintiff BE’s debt obligations in 3 billion won paid to Plaintiff BB, and that the portion paid to Plaintiff BE in excess of 200,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,0000,000,000,000.

(3) Therefore, Plaintiff AA’s assertion that: (a) the instant disposition imposing corporate tax on Plaintiff JJ Bank is lawful; and (b) the instant disposition of corporate tax was rendered without any ground on the grounds that the instant disposition of corporate tax was rendered without considering the key amount of the first issue in the instant case as the interest in collecting the Plaintiff AA’s claims; and

E. Whether the instant disposition of global income tax was lawful

(1) According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the second key issue amount of the instant case among Plaintiff BB received from FF on July 20, 2006 from FF on the part of FF on the golf course business, the lawsuit related to golf course business rights, the arbitration of the agreement for the transfer of golf course business rights, and as seen above, it is not recognized that Plaintiff BB provided FF on the part of F on the part of F on the part of F on the part of OOB on the part of F on the part of F on the part of F on the part of F on the part of F on the part of F on the part of F on the part of F on the part of F on the part of F on the part of F on the part of F on the part of F on

(2) Accordingly, Plaintiff BB asserted that, while Plaintiff BB, and Plaintiff BB’s assistance in business to FF, it was intended to recover loans from OOE, it cannot be recognized that Plaintiff BB lent OOE to FF an amount equivalent to OOE or OOE. Therefore, Plaintiff BB’s above assertion is without merit.

In addition, Plaintiff BB, and Plaintiff BB’s claim that the amount of the second issue of this case received from FF is the price for providing personal services under Article 19 of the Income Tax Act, but the content and character of the personal services provided by Plaintiff BB to FF under Article 21(1)19 of the Income Tax Act differs from that of the personal services provided by Article 21(1)19 of the Income Tax Act, and there is no reason for Plaintiff BB’s claim.

(3) Therefore, the disposition imposing the income tax on Plaintiff BB by deeming the key issue amount of the instant case No. 2 as an honorarium among the other income of Plaintiff BB, is lawful, and the Plaintiff BB’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.