Seocho 2012west 1527 ( October 24, 2012)

Bad debt of an unretriable claim is recognized as deductible expenses only when it is appropriated as necessary expenses in the account book.

The statement on occurrence of profits and losses, etc. prepared by the Plaintiff by free will is considered reasonable and reasonable, and it is legitimate disposition except for part of the tax data that does not actually lend funds. In addition, it is not the case where the collection of non-collectionable claims asserted by the Plaintiff are not extinguished legally, such as the expiration of prescription, and it is recognized as necessary expenses only

2012Guhap40490 global income and revocation of disposition

AA

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

July 19, 2013

August 23, 2013

1. Of the imposition of global income tax on July 15, 201 and the imposition of global income tax on global income tax on global income (including additional tax) on global income tax on global income in 2007, the part exceeding OOOOO won among the imposition of global income tax on global income tax on global income in 2008, and the imposition of global income tax on global income tax on global income in 2009 (including additional tax) on global income tax on global income in 209, each of the above parts exceeds OOO won.

The cancellation shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 9/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant.

Each disposition taken by the Defendant on July 15, 201 against the Plaintiff on the global income tax in 2006, OOOO(including additional duties), OOOO(including additional duties) in 2007, OOO(including additional duties) in global income tax in 2008, and OO(including additional duties) in global income tax in 2009.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Agreements and loans on guaranteeing investment returns;

(1) In around 2006, the Plaintiff established and operated five domestic corporations, such as BB corporation (hereinafter referred to as “BB”), CCC (hereinafter referred to as “CCC”), and DD (hereinafter referred to as “DD”), including EE, and FF (hereinafter referred to as “instant corporation”).

(2) From 2006 to 2009, the Plaintiff loaned funds to major shareholders, etc. of the KOSDAQ-listed company in the name of the instant corporation for subscription to new shares with warrant bonds, and for the purchase limit in the country. The Plaintiff received 2-3% of the leased principal as commission fees, and received the funds for subscription to new shares in order to secure loan, etc. as the accounts of GG (the Plaintiff’s wife’s wife, etc.) and the instant corporation.

(3) On May 13, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the guarantee of investment return and the surplus investment return disposition agreement with HH, a joint and several surety, under the name of the pertinent legal entity, with GG, etc., as follows, and agreed with the same agreement each time of lease. In addition, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on a monetary loan for consumption with the debtor separately and received authentication.

○ Agreement on Guarantee of Investment Return

Article 3 Guarantee of Investment Principal and Investment Return

1. 연대보증인은 투자자 및 주간사가 일반 공모 유상증자 발행에 의거하여 유상증자 청약대금을 납입하고 신주를 교부받아 정해진 시간에 시장 내에서 주식을 매각함에 있어 투자자 및 주간사에게 원금 OOOO원의 회수를 보장함과 동시에 총 투자금액의 최소 2.5%어| 해당하는 투자수익 OOOO원을 보장하기로 한다.

2.In accordance with paragraph 1, if a weekly company and an investor have disposed of shares under the principal and minimum income in the market, and in other words, net income, except for various costs and taxes, is less than OOO won, and the joint guarantor will fully compensate for the shortage of principal and investment profits generated at the time of such disposal.

Article 5. Enforcement Guarantee: Security and Notarial Bills

1. In order to guarantee the implementation of Article 3, a joint and several sureties shall submit in advance cash equivalent to one percent of the amount invested (OOOO) as a fund to be borne by an individual or corporation;

Article VII Investment Period, Time Limit and Request for Extension

1. The due date shall be until June 12, 2009 (one month from the date of the payment of the subscription price for a person who has been paid for oil), and if an investor fails to sell all stocks within this day to the head, the joint guarantor shall immediately purchase the stocks that he/she has sold at the price which guarantees 102.5% of the total subscription price, or immediately pay the difference between the sale amount and the guarantee amount in cash.

2. The last settlement date shall be the date of the final capital settlement on which all shares are fully sold and the funds are settled, and the minimum settlement date shall be June 12, 2009.

○ Agreement on Disposal of Surplus Investment Return

All marginal profits exceeding 2.5% of the guaranteed profits shall be returned to joint and several sureties (including corporate tax, global income tax, etc.) after deducting the expenses and taxes (including corporate tax, global income tax, etc.) of investors (A).

(b) Details of disposition;

(1) From March 30, 2011 to June 30, 2011, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted non-regular investigation against the Plaintiff (the taxable period subject to investigation: from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2009). The Defendant notified the Defendant of the taxation data that he/she performed credit business under the name of the instant corporation, and that he/she did not report the interest accrued from lending funds to major shareholders on the KOSDAQ by pretending stock transaction with III, etc. to the account of the instant corporation, and that he/she did not report the income of the loan brokerage commission to the major shareholders on the KOSDAQ.

(2) Accordingly, on July 15, 201, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of the global income tax OOO(including additional taxes), global income tax OO(including additional taxes), global income tax OO(including additional taxes), global income tax OO(including additional taxes) in 2007, and global income tax OO(including additional taxes) in 2008, and global income tax OO(including additional taxes) in 209 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an objection on October 4, 201, and on November 25, 2012, the Seoul Regional Tax Service dismissed the Plaintiff on the ground that “OOOO of an irrecoverable claim (non-performing) claim after 2006 cannot be deemed necessary expenses unless it is accounted as expenses in the pertinent year unless it is accounted as expenses for the pertinent year.”

(4) On February 27, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial on February 27, 2012, but on October 24, 2012, the Plaintiff was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on the ground that “it is impossible to recoverable claims on the double-type account book, and thus it cannot be deemed as necessary expenses by the OOO of the non-repaid claims”.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, entry in Gap 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, and 2, 3, 8, 10, and 11 (including natural disasters), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Violation of the burden of proof

The plaintiff was investigated by the prosecutor in violation of the Securities and Exchange Act and prepared a report on the occurrence of profits and losses, including losses not recovered in order to escape from suspicion, the prosecutor or the defendant did not confirm the facts, and the defendant prepared a report on the statement of profits and losses (hereinafter referred to as the "attached specification table") based only on the report on occurrence of profits and losses, and the tax evasion data prepared by the investigative agency can only be considered as one of the data on the spot investigation only when the investigation agency's judgment documents are merely attached to the investigation agency, and the data including account books and other documents are included in the evidence, unless proved by reasonable data, and the investigation data prepared by the investigative agency can be considered as one of the data on the spot investigation, and even if the tax authority reported the amount of income at the time of the investigation, the investigation data prepared by the investigative agency can not be considered as taxation data, and if not based on correct facts, it can not be considered as evidence to support the legality of taxation if the funds have not been executed after the conclusion of the contract, and if it is included in the report list, it should be considered that the defendant is unlawful.

(2)As to the receipt time, etc.

According to Article 48 (10) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and the time of receipt of interest and discount accrued from the financial insurance business under the Korean Standard Industrial Classification is "the date of actual importation", and the disposition of this case is unlawful for determining the time of receipt or not imported as of the agreed date.

(3) the cost deduction of non-repaid claims.

Even if interest and fees were received, unrepaid claims must be deducted from the cost, and unrepaid claims are claims which are irrecoverable due to the debtor's bankruptcy, compulsory execution, execution of punishment, or the discontinuation of business, and do not settle accounts, such as entry in the account book.

In addition, Article 80 (1) of the Income Tax Act (where a person liable to file a final return on tax base with global income fails to do so, the tax base and tax amount for the corresponding year shall be determined) provides that the disposition agency should determine the tax base by itself on the premise that it is impossible to adjust the settlement of accounts by any person without any reporting, and the tax base should be determined by considering the amount of non-repaid claims as expenses. Furthermore, the Plaintiff shall deduct the non-repaid claims at the expense, as the Plaintiff prepared the slips on bad debts on August 16, 2012, managed by the computer system, and submitted them on August 16, 2012.

Therefore, the disposition of this case which did not deduct the expenses of the non-collectionable claim is unlawful.

(4) Imposition of unrealized income

According to Article 51 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, when the amount recovered from interest income from non-business loans falls short of the principal, income tax shall not be imposed on the actual recovered interest income, and income tax shall not be imposed unless the leased principal is recovered.

(5) Interest income and errors in the time of attribution

(A) JJJ Co., Ltd.

Of the attached specifications, each income concerning JJ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "JJ") of paragraph 13 (hereinafter referred to as "paragraph 13 (hereinafter referred to as "paragraph 13) and KK Co., Ltd. of paragraph 16 (hereinafter referred to as "KK") and LL of paragraph 3 (hereinafter referred to as "L") is a stock investment return on the Stock Exchange, and shall not be calculated as interest income.

(B) MM Co., Ltd.

The respective revenues concerning MM Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “MM”) and NN(hereinafter referred to as “NN”) in paragraph 96 are not actually generated notwithstanding the terms of the investment return guarantee agreement, and they shall not be calculated as interest income.

(C) PPP Co., Ltd.

제58항의 주식회사 PPP(이하 'PPP'이라 한다)에 관한 이자수입은 2009년에， 제102항의 QQQ에 관한 이자수입은 2010년에 발생하였으므로， PPP에 관한 이자수입의 귀속시기를 2008년， QQQ에 관한 이자수업의 귀속시기를 2009년으로 한 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Prosecution investigation

(A) On December 2, 2009, the Plaintiff was investigated into the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act at the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office, and stated as follows.

It is found that the amount invested from February 2006 to the present is about 01 US dollars and US US dollars.

There are cases where the term of ○ 3 to 6 months is the basic investment period, and where the investment environment is not strong, it has up to 9 months.

(B) On December 4, 2009, the Plaintiff prepared and submitted a list of profits and losses on the basis of data on investment transactions at the prosecutor’s request.

(2) Necessary expenses deduction, etc.

(A) The Defendant confirmed that “the Plaintiff lent funds to major shareholders, etc. without obtaining authorization for credit business,” and registered the Plaintiff as “financial and insurance business ex officio on June 27, 2011.”

(B) The Seoul Regional Tax Office considered the Plaintiff as the interest cost related to the credit business and deducted the OOOO in 2006 to 2009 from the interest cost for the instant legal entity, the OOOO and 2007 to 2009 from the sales cost, and the OOOG in 2007 to 2009 from the sales cost. However, the 2006 to 2006 did not deduct the OOOO from the necessary expenses.

(3) Plaintiff’s statement and written confirmation to the tax official

(A) On June 28, 201, the Plaintiff was investigated into the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by the Seoul Regional Tax Office, and stated as follows.

The repayment of loan funds has been collected by selling stocks allocated in the FF name, etc. in order to the stock market in accordance with the loan loan agreement with the KOSDAQ-listed corporate actual stockholders. At the request of the actual stockholders (large stockholders) who are the debtor, the stocks shall be sold and the surplus profits shall be settled with the debtor after the lease period expires. However, if the shortage of security occurs, the loan funds shall be recovered through the opposite transaction even if there is no request from the debtor.

(B) The Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office prepared the attached list based on the Plaintiff’s statement of profits and losses (2) submitted by the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office, the agreement on guaranteeing investment returns (2, 10-2, 11-2, 10-3, 11-3, and 11-3, and the agreement on the disposition of investment returns (2, 10-3, 11-3, 11-3, and 13, and received the following confirmations from the Plaintiff in the presence of the RoR, a tax agent on June 28, 201:

In 2006 to 2009, the Plaintiff omitted the global income tax return even though there were earnings in the nature of interest income and interest through various investment forms, such as subscription to new shares, CB (Convertible Bonds), B (B (B) and purchase limit, etc., while engaging in credit business using the borrowed names of corporations such as BB, etc. and individuals such as GG and SS.

- - The following:

Reversion Year

Principal

Interest (including fees) profits

206

OOO

OOO

2007

OOO

OOO

208

OOO

OOO

209

OOO

OOO

Total

OOO

OOO

* The status of failure to recover the amount equivalent to the leased principal.

* The interest income is calculated as first collected in cases where part of the investment principal and interest has been recovered.

(4) Failure to pay interest income and errors in time of attribution

(A) JJ (Paragraph 13)

In the contract investment period column of the settlement statement for each company (section 13), ‘ simple investment', ‘participation in capital increase with general funeral' in the investment content column, and ‘TTT' in the debtor and joint guarantor column, respectively, and each of them includes the principal and interest of the agreement, the amount collected, and profits and losses compared to the principal amount.

(B) KK (Paragraph 16)

Each company's settlement of accounts (section 28) includes ' simple investment' in the agreed investment period column, 'foreign bonds with warrants' in the investment content column, 'UU' in the debtor and joint guarantor column, 'UU', and 'U' in the agreed principal and interest, and profits and losses compared to the collected amount and principal amount.

(C) LL (Paragraph 33)

1) On January 8, 2008, the Plaintiff paid 236,653 shares in the name of CCC, 747,185 shares in DD name, and 646,142 shares in the name of UU, and OOO shares.

2) The details of the investment in each company's settlement statement (No. 28 pages) include "general public offering participation", and include both the principal and interest of the agreement, the amount collected, and profits and losses compared to the principal." The creditor's column and the agreed investment period column include " simple investment", and the debtor's and joint guarantor's column, and the actual investment period column are each column.

(D) MM (Paragraph 92)

On July 29, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with V and “CC, etc. lend a treasury stock purchase fund to MF” (hereinafter “CC”) under the name of the CCC, etc.

(E) NN (paragraph 96)

On December 11, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with NN to guarantee investment profits that NN and WW and “CCC, etc. lend their treasury stock purchase funds to NN in the name of the CCC, etc. In accordance with the investment profit guarantee agreement on December 12, 2008, the Plaintiff was provided with cash OOO, etc. from NN as a security, but returned the security to NN upon the request for the cancellation of the investment profit guarantee agreement by NN.

(바) PPP(제58항)과 QQQ(제 102항)

원고는 2008. 10. 24.부터 2009. 3. 30.까지 담보로 취득한 PPP의 주식을 매도하였고， 2010. 4. 14.부터 2010. 4. 16.까지 담보로 취득한 QQQ의 주식을 매도하였다.

Facts without dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 9, 11 through 17, and Eul evidence 1, 2, 4, and 7 (including household numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

(1) As to the burden of proof

(A) In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition imposing tax, the burden of proving the facts of taxation is required to prove the opposite facts, etc. If it is proved that the facts of taxation are presumed to have been established in light of the empirical rule in the course of the lawsuit, and the person liable for tax payment is required to prove the opposite facts, etc. Meanwhile, a statement made by a person who is not a taxpayer in the course of investigation by an investigation agency or a tax authority is merely a unilateral statement made by the person who is not a taxpayer if there is evidence consistent with the statement or there is no supplementary investigation for verifying the facts about the taxpayer, etc., barring any special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du5022, Jul. 9, 2009). However, if the process and contents of the preparation are not written against the free will of the parties or related persons, and the contents thereof are deemed to be reasonable and correct as taxation data, it may be deemed as one of other materials that can serve as the basis for the field investigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du16137, Oct. 26, 200

(B) The disposition in this case was made on the basis of the plaintiff's statement of profits and losses, the statement of accounts by company, and the confirmation document, and there is no circumstance to deem that the plaintiff made a statement about the transaction that became the basis of the disposition in this case at the prosecution, as the plaintiff alleged in the plaintiff, and there is no reason to deem that the plaintiff was forged or falsified to escape from suspicion (which is part of the false part, but it cannot be presumed that the whole was made by falsity). The plaintiff prepared a confirmation document in the presence of Kim mother, a tax agent, in the presence of the plaintiff Kim mother, and the calculation statement of profits and losses, the amount of the contract, the amount of the amount of the investment, the type of the contract (the debtor and joint guarantor, and the actual investment period), and the content of the settlement of profits and losses (the principal, the amount of the agreement, the amount collected, the amount of the principal, the comparison of profits and losses, and the calculation of the principal) and other (current circumstances).

(C) Therefore, the instant disposition based on the taxation requirement is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

(2)As to the receipt time, etc.

The time of receipt must be based on the "the date of importation into the actual system" as alleged by the plaintiff, and should be based on the amount of revenue. However, as long as the tax requirements have been proved by the statement of profit and loss occurred, the circumstance that the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, and it is insufficient to prove it, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(3) Regarding the cost deduction of non-collectionable claims

(A) Comprehensively considering the provisions of Article 27(1) and Article 55(1)16(2) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same), Article 25(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same) and Article 25(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Enforcement Rule, when calculating the business income amount, bad debts equivalent to necessary expenses are not legally extinguished and legally extinguished, but can be divided into cases where, in light of the debtor’s asset situation, payment ability, etc., it is impossible to recover assets. In this case, the latter may be included in necessary expenses for the pertinent taxable year only when the company has counted it in the account that it was clearly impossible to recover and its bad debts have occurred (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du6737, Jun.

In light of the above legal principles, the case is considered as a health zone, the plaintiff claims that cannot be recovered due to the debtor's bankruptcy, compulsory execution, execution of punishment, or the discontinuation of business, but the non-performing loan statement (Evidence A 3) and non-performing loan confirmation statement (Evidence A 9) are merely in the table prepared by the plaintiff and there is no objective evidence to support the non-performing loan confirmation (Evidence A 9). In light of the above legal principles, the reasons asserted by the plaintiff are not extinguished legally, such as the extinction of prescription, and it is recognized as necessary expenses only when it is counted as necessary expenses, it cannot be deemed that there is an error in the disposition of this case not deducted from the necessary expenses.

(B) The burden of proof of the tax base is on the tax authority, and the tax base is deducted from necessary expenses, and the burden of proof of income and necessary expenses is, in principle, on the tax authority.

However, the necessary expenses are only favorable to the taxpayer, and most of the factual relations causing necessary expenses are located within the area under the control of the taxpayer, and the tax authority has difficulty in proving them, and where it is reasonable to have the taxpayer prove it in consideration of the difficulty in proving them or equity between the parties, it conforms to the concept of fairness to recognize the necessity of proof for the taxpayer (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du22955, Mar. 26, 2009). In addition, the claims included in bad debts under Article 55 (1) 16 of the Enforcement Decree are limited to the claims objectively confirmed, and the tax authority cannot confirm them in the situations where the taxpayer is responsible, and if the above legal basis is not extinguished, only necessary expenses can be included in the account book if the tax authority calculates necessary expenses, and considering the fact that the Plaintiff failed to prepare such account book and the tax authority could not confirm it, it cannot be viewed that the tax base was unlawful even if the tax authority became final and conclusive as necessary expenses because it failed to deduct the claims.

(C) A non-collectionable claim, other than legally extinguished, cannot be counted in necessary expenses due to tax adjustment because it is a matter of the settlement of accounts to be counted in necessary expenses only when the business operator appropriated the necessary expenses for himself/herself, and it cannot be counted in necessary expenses due to tax adjustment because he/she understates or failed to include them. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff prepared and submitted the slips after the instant disposition,

(D) Therefore, it cannot be deducted from non-repaid claims as necessary expenses, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(4) As to the taxation of unrealizedd income

Article 16 (1) 12 of the Income Tax Act provides for non-business fees. The issue of whether the income from the lending of money depends on whether the lending of money constitutes a business under the Income Tax Act, and whether the lending of money constitutes a business under the Income Tax Act, and whether it falls under a business under a business under the Income Tax Act shall be determined non-business fees according to social norms, taking into account all the circumstances such as the profitability, continuity, continuity, length of the transaction period, and the amount of the lending and the difference between interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du14505, Aug. 19, 2005). Accordingly, Article 26 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010, amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, supra. 3 of the Income Tax Act provides that "the profits from non-business loans shall be the interest or fees that a person who does not have the purpose of the lending of money is paid for temporary and incidental."

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff continued to lend the instant case to major shareholders without obtaining authorization for credit business, and that the Plaintiff stated that the amount of the loan from February 2, 2006 to February 2009 is about KRW 3 to 6 months in Korean Won and USD 00 in US dollars, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff continuously and repeatedly lent the money for profit-making purposes, and that the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that it is a non-business payment is without merit.

(5) As to the error of interest income and time of attribution

(A) J, KK and LL

① J(13) KK (paragraph 16) indicated that “a simple investment” in the agreed investment period column in the agreement settlement form for each company: In other words, the debtor and joint guarantor, and the amount of principal and interest, and profits and losses in comparison with the principal and interest of each company are written, and in the same form as the settlement statement for other companies, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff lent each of the funds for the purchase of bonds with warrants to K participating in the JJ, and the plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

(2) With respect to LL (paragraph 33), the agreement and the amount of principal and interest, and profits and losses are described in the agreement settlement statement for each company, but different from the settlement statement for other company, " simple investment" is indicated in the creditor column and the agreed-term investment column, so it cannot be specified, and considering the fact that the debtor and the joint guarantor column are vacant, and it is difficult to see that the plaintiff has lent funds to participate in the subscription for new stocks issued by public offering under the name of the CCC, etc., and that the plaintiff has paid the stock price under the name of the CCC, etc., it is difficult to see that the plaintiff has made a loan for the participation in the subscription for new stocks issued by public offering (it

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is justified.

(B) MM (paragraph 92) and N (paragraph 96)

According to the above facts, the plaintiff did not lend funds because it was not provided with security under the guarantee of investment return agreement from MM (the testimony of the witness Kim Young-soo), and ② returned the security to NN upon the NN's request for termination of the contract (the evidence No. 14-2 and 3), and MM and N shall not be calculated as interest income with respect to MM and N.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is justified.

(다) PPP(제58항)과 QQQ(제102항)

투자수익보장약정 제7조 제2항에 의하면 "최종 정산일은 모든 주식을 완전히 매각하여 자금이 결제되는 최종 수도결제일을 정산 기준일로 한다 고 규정하고 있으므로， 이자수입의 귀속시기는 주식의 완전 매각일 기준으로 보아야 한다. 한편， 위 인정사실에 의하면 PPP 주식은 2009. 3. 30.， QQQ 주식은 2010. 4. 16. 완전 매각되었으므로， 이자수입의 귀속시기는 PPP은 2009년， QQQ는 2010년이다.

따라서 이 사건 처분 중 PPP에 관한 이자수입의 귀속시기를 2008년， QQQ에 관한 이자수입의 귀속시기를 2009년으로 한 부분은 위법하므로， 원고의 주장은 이유 있다.

(6) Scope of revocation

(A) In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax disposition, the legality of the disposition is determined depending on whether it exceeds the legitimate amount of tax, and the parties may submit arguments and materials supporting the objective amount of tax liability until the closing of arguments in the fact-finding court is closed, and when a legitimate amount of tax to be imposed lawfully is calculated based on such materials, only the portion exceeding the legitimate amount of tax must be revoked, and the entire amount shall not be revoked (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du8930, Jun. 12, 2001).

(나) 위와 같이 LLL(제33항， 2007년 종합소득세)， MMM(제92항， 2009년 종합소득세)， NNN(제96항， 2009년 종합소득세)， PPP(제58항， 2008년 종합소득세)， QQQ(제102항， 2009년 종합소득세)에 관한 이자수입은 위법하므로， 이들을 공제하여

The calculation of a legitimate tax amount shall be as listed in the following table:

(unit: Won)

Items

Tax year

2007

208

209

Revenue amount

OOO

OOO

OOO

Amount of income deducted

OOO

OOO

OOO

Revised Revenue Amount

OOO

OOO

OOO

Global income amount;

OOO

OOO

OOO

Income Deduction

OOO

OOO

OOO

Tax Base

OOO

OOO

OOO

Tax Rate

OOO

OOO

OOO

Amount of final tax

OOO

OOO

OOO

Additional Tax

OOO

OOO

OOO

Total determined tax amount

OOO

OOO

OOO

Tax amount already paid

Original notified tax amount

OOO

OOO

OOO

Tax Refund

OOO

OOO

OOO

Amount of legitimate tax;

OOO

OOO

OOO

* Details of the amount of revenue deducted

Global income tax in 2007: Tax credit for the amount of LL income OO won

Global income tax in 2008: Tax credit for OOO won of the PP revenue amount

2009년 종합소득세 : 합계 OOOO원( = MMM OOOO원 + NNN OOOO원 + QQQ OOOO원)공제

※ PPP과 QQQ는 이자수입의 귀속시기만 위법할 뿐 수수료는 적법하므로, 이자수입만 공제한다.

(C) Therefore, the part of the imposition of global income tax for 2007, and the part of the imposition of global income tax for 2008, among the imposition of global income tax for 2008, which exceeds the OOOO won, is unlawful, and each of the above should be revoked.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable within the above recognized scope, and the other claims are dismissed as there is no reasonable ground, and it is so decided as per Disposition.