Cho High Court Decision 201Do0671 (Law No. 107.04)

The reward received in return for loan arrangement shall be the first disposition party;

It is reasonable to deem that the instant money received by the Plaintiff is not a loan but a reward received in return for receiving a loan by introducing a person arranging the loan. Therefore, the initial disposition of imposition is lawful.

2011Guhap32973 global income and revocation of disposition

CHAPTER A

Director of the District Office

March 6, 2012

March 29, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 111,878,800 for the Plaintiff on April 1, 2010, exceeding 17,010,000, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 26, 2006, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a conviction of 10 months in the following criminal facts (hereinafter referred to as "the first instance judgment") in the Ulsan District Court 2006Kadan910 on September 26, 2006, in the case of violation of the rate of punishment (reconciliation) under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes:

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed as the Ulsan District Court 2006No739 and was sentenced not guilty by the above court on March 30, 2007 for the following reasons, and the above judgment was finalized by the Supreme Court on August 23, 2007 (2007Do3078).

C. The director of the Ulsan District Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the above judgment of the first instance court as global income tax assessment data. The Defendant, on November 26, 2010, deemed that the Plaintiff’s 200 million won (hereinafter “the instant money”) was a honorarium among other income under the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837, Jan. 1, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply), and decided and notified the Plaintiff on April 1, 2010, the amount of KRW 111,878,800 of global income tax for the year 205.” The Plaintiff appealed against this and filed an objection against the Defendant on October 19, 2010, the Defendant accepted the Plaintiff’s return of KRW 30,000,000 from the instant money to the rightB, and issued a reduction of the Plaintiff’s remaining amount of KRW 11,87,800,000,000 and KRW 108,007.

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 22, 2011, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on July 4, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence 1 to 4, 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff was acquitted of the facts constituting the instant crime and the judgment became final and conclusive, and that the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to the rightB on May 8, 2006, the instant money that the Plaintiff received from the rightB is not a reward for good offices, but a loan amount.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

1) 김CC는 2005년 10월경 권BB의 아내인 김DD으로부터 "남편이 울산에서 재개발사업을 하는데 아파트를 건축하는 사람이 있으면 소개해 달라"는 취지의 부탁을 받고, 자신이 운영하는 식당의 단골손님으로 건설 및 부동산개발업체인 QQQQQ의 전무이사로 일하고 있는 원고를 찾아가 보라고 소개시켜 주었다.

2) 이에 권BB이 사업계획서와 관련 자료를 가지고 원고를 찾아가 사업계획을 설명하면서 시공을 부탁하였으나, 원고가 QQQQQQ에서는 주상복합건물을 시공하지 않는다고 하면서 이를 거절하자, 권BB은 원고에게 자금력이 있는 시행사라도 소개해 달라고 부탁하였다.

3) In around 2003, the Plaintiff: (a) came to know of the mutual savings bank in charge of the Financial Supervisory Service’s introduction of the PP; (b) it was called that “if there is a good land, it would be introduced; and (c) it would be possible to introduce the good land.” (d) the Plaintiff’s business plan of Posing SB B during October 2005, and asked to find out the Pos and find out the person who will win the funds.

4) The SS visited OTS, the representative director of HH Mutual Savings Bank, who was well aware of it with a high-speed line, and talked about the business plan of HB. OTS was immediately interested in the above business plan. At the end of October 2005, the Plaintiff explained about the issue of the sale of main complex buildings and the issue of disposal of commercial facilities planned by HB based on the S et al. and the business plan.

5) On November 1, 2005, the Plaintiff introduced the rightB directly to SS, etc., and thereafter, the rightB explained the specific business plan. Thereafter, the rightB borrowed 18.7 billion won from HH mutual savings banks, which received the direction of TS on November 4, 2005, including the head of credit, KimU, etc. from H mutual savings banks, and additionally borrowed 5 billion won on November 9, 2005.

6) On November 9, 2005, the rightB issued a bag containing KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff, while talking that the Plaintiff was given a loan at the VVVV hotel coffee shop located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Seoul OOdong, Gangnam-gu Seoul.

7) On May 8, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30 million to KimCC, and on May 8, 2006, SPCC transferred the above KRW 30 million to KimD, who was the wife of SP, the rightB, the amount of KRW 30 million to the attorney fee for the criminal case of SB.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Eul evidence 2-2, testimony of witness KimD, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

살피건대, 앞서 인정한 사실관계에 앞서 든 증거들 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 원고가 이 사건 범죄사실에 대하여 무죄 판결을 받은 것은 알선의뢰인인 권BB과 알선상대방인 금융기관의 임 ・ 직원 사이를 직접 중개한 것이 아니며 대출 알선에 관하여 소개행위를 통하여 알선의 실행행위를 주도하여 이에 적극 관여한 것으로 평가하기 어렵다고 판단하였기 때문인 점, ② 원고는 권 BB의 대출 편의를 위하여 양SS을 소개함과 아울러 그에게 대출에 관한 알선을 부탁하였고, 권BB이 HH상호저축은행으로부터 대출을 받은 후 원고에게 대출을 받았다는 사실을 말하면서 이 사건 금원을 건네준 점,® 원고는 위 3,000만원을 권BB에게 직접 지급하지 않고 김CC에게 지급하였고, 권BB은 김CC로부터 위 3,000만 원을 받았지만 그 돈이 자신의 형사사건에 관한 변호사 수임료에 보태쓰라고 하면서 김CC가 위로금조로 지급한 것이라고 알고 있었을 뿐 원고가 김CC에게 지급한 돈이 라는 사실은 몰랐던 점, ③ 원고와 권BB 사이에 차용증이 작성된 바도 없고, 원고가 권BB에게 이자를 지급한 적도 없는 등 이 사건 금원이 차용금이라고 볼 만한 아무런 자료가 없는 점 등을 종합하면, 원고가 권BB으로부터 받은 이 사건 금원은 차용금이 아니라 권BB에게 대출을 알선한 자를 소개하여 대출을 받게 된 것에 대한 대가로 받은 사례금이라고 봄이 상당하므로, 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.