National Tax Service Review Income 2012-0046 (Law No. 17 August 2012)

It is reasonable to view that a person who actually earnss income by lending money and receiving money is the plaintiff.

In full view of the fact that the husband of the plaintiff seems to have not sufficient means to lend money to the person with bad credit standing at the time of remittance, and it is reasonable to deem that the person who lent money to the riverB is not the husband of the plaintiff but the plaintiff, and it is reasonable to deem that the person who actually received money from the riverB is the

2012Guhap3879 global income and revocation of disposition

GuaAA

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

April 5, 2013

May 3, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing global income tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on May 9, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 21, 2004, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 000 to the Gangwon, and received a total of KRW 000 won, including KRW 00 on October 18, 2006, and KRW 000,00 on January 2, 2007.

B. On May 9, 2012, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff leased KRW 000 to the GangwonB and received KRW 000 as a interest (=00 -00 won) when the Plaintiff acquired 135,882 square meters of forest 00,000 OO-dong O-dong, Seoul Regional Tax Office (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and notified the Defendant of the assessment data, and the Defendant imposed KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on May 9, 2012, global income tax amounting to 2007.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination on June 19, 2012, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on August 17, 2012.

"The defendant issued on May 9, 2012 to the plaintiff on 2007, 200 won of global income tax of 000 won for the taxable year 2007, which the plaintiff received from HongD, corrected its tax base and tax amount, and rejected its claim, and the defendant made a decision that the plaintiff reduced the global income tax of 000 won originally imposed upon the above decision (hereinafter "the disposition in this case"). "(The disposition in which the tax amount of 000 won was reduced from the initially imposed global income tax of 000 won and the remaining 000 won was reduced," "The disposition in this case")," "(the grounds for recognition) did not dispute, and the purport of Gap evidence 8 and Eul evidence 13, and Eul evidence 1 and all the arguments are described.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.

1) The primary argument

In the process of making funds to acquire the real estate of this case, a person who actually participated in the process of GangwonB from the process of making such funds to the disposal thereof is Park E, who is the spouse of the plaintiff, and a person who actually suffered income by receiving money from the GangwonB is Park E, not the plaintiff. Therefore, the taxation on the money received from the GangwonB under the principle of substantial taxation should be made to Park E, and the disposition of this case made against the plaintiff is unlawful.

2) Preliminary assertion

Even if the Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 95,490,00 to Gangwon is deemed to have accrued to the Plaintiff, and even if the Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 95,490,000 is deemed to have accrued to the Plaintiff, the GangwonB recognized the Plaintiff’s equity interest as equal to the Plaintiff’s interest in RedD’s loan in return for the arrangement of investment and loan of YE, and thus, the amount of KRW 000,000, which is the difference between the Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 000 and KRW 000,000, which is the difference between KRW 000,000, and the Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 00,000,000, which is the Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 00 and KRW 00,000,000, which is divided in proportion to the Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 00,000,000, which is unlawful in calculating the income tax on the Plaintiff, notwithstanding the comprehensive tax base of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 19897 of Dec. 31, 2009)

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) B on June 25, 2003, Gangwon completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on the ground of public sale on the same day.

2) In order to raise funds for the public auction of the instant real estate, the KB was financed with 00 won from GG, 000 won from HH, 000 won from HH, and 000 won from GJ as the introduction of HE, and 00 won from GJ, and 00 won from GJ, upon the introduction of GE.

3) On April 14, 2004, the Court of Justice demanded Gangnam to return its investment amount, and the Plaintiff, around April 14, 2004, took over the status of the Court of Justice, after receiving a loan from Gwangju District Livestock Cooperatives as collateral of No. 000 OOO apartment No. 000,000, which is its own possession, and transferred KRW 000 to KangB on April 21, 2004.

4) On September 22, 2005, Park F, the agents of ParkG, Cho H, and this II, and Park E-E, the agents of the plaintiff, and RedD, have prepared and awarded to the strongB a letter of performance that:

(Contents omitted)

5) On September 23, 2005, Gangnam set up a certificate of loans with 000 won in terms of "gG, Hah, and Hah, the plaintiff, and RedD," and the creditor loan details: stuffs, O, and 200 won in terms of these two, and the plaintiff 00 won in redD0, and on the same day completed the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security of 00 won in respect of the real estate in this case to Park GG, etc.

6) On October 18, 2006, Gangwon paid KRW 000 to the Plaintiff as its own check, and on January 2, 2007, remitted KRW 000 to the Plaintiff’s account, and on October 18, 2006, KRW 000 out of the amount received from GangwonB on October 18, 2006 and KRW 000 out of the amount received from GangwonB on January 2, 2007.

[Grounds for Recognition] The entire purport of the arguments and evidence 1, evidence 1, evidence 1, evidence 2, 3, evidence 4, 5, 5, 7, 7, 8, and 11, evidence 2, evidence 3, and evidence 1, and evidence 2, evidence 3, and evidence 2, and evidence 3, respectively.

D. Determination

1) Judgment on the main argument

In light of the above facts, the plaintiff directly remitted 00 won out of the money that he borrowed as a collateral to Gangnam on April 21, 2004, and the riverB transferred 00 won to the account under the name of the plaintiff on January 2, 2007. ② The plaintiff received 000 won's cashier's checks from the GangwonO on October 18, 2006. The receipt is stated as follows. ③ The 'OOO's checks were paid to the plaintiff and the fD's down payment was paid to the plaintiff. ③ The loan certificate prepared by the GangnamB written by the plaintiff, the plaintiff is written as the creditor, and the person who actually borrowed the real estate of this case to secure the above borrowed money was written as the right holder of the right, and the person who did not receive 00 won from the plaintiff as his agent, and the 200th anniversary of the loan should not be viewed as the plaintiff's creditor, and the 40th of the loan was written by the plaintiff as his agent.

2) Determination on the conjunctive assertion

The Plaintiff’s agreement to pay 00 won, which is the difference between 00 won and 00 won of 00 won of YB and 00 won of 00 won of the Plaintiff’s loan, is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s testimony by means of Gap’s certificate 12 and B, while the Plaintiff’s agreement to pay 00 won of 00 won of YB’s investment loan and 00 won of 00 won of PEB’s loan and 00 won of 00 won of e.g., e., 00 won of e., e., e., 00 won of PEB’s investment loan and 00 won of e.g., e., 00 won of e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., investment funds.

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.