Whether the act of lending money constitutes a financial business under the Business Tax Act or the Income Tax Act where interest has been paid on several occasions by lending money to one person once.

The term "financial business that serves as the tax base for business tax" refers to a case where the act of lending money and receiving interest thereon continues to be for profit-making purposes, and the income from the financial business that is the object of the business income tax under the Income Tax Act shall also be interpreted as the above meaning. Thus, even if the plaintiff received interest over several occasions, if it is merely a loan to one person only once, it cannot be deemed as a continuous profit-making purpose, and it cannot be viewed as a financial business under the Business Tax Act or a income from such a loan shall not be deemed as

Article 1 of the Business Tax Act, Article 1, Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Business Tax Act, Article 4 of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Nu205 Delivered on January 16, 1973

Plaintiff

Head of the tax office;

Each disposition taken by the defendant against the plaintiff in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

The Defendant’s each disposition on imposition of interest on the Plaintiff is without dispute between the parties concerned. The Defendant established an office in Jongno-gu Seoul Burialdong 38-2 from eight years ago to 38-2 of the same year and operated money credit business as his agent. On December 11, 1969, the Defendant loaned 8,000,000 won as of five copies per month to Nonparty 2 as its agent, and received 8,000,000 won as of that day, and received 2,50,000 won as of August 28, 1970 to June of the same year, and repeatedly received 1970 to 10.10,000 won as of this year’s interest rate from July 1, 1970 to November 28, 1970 to 10,000 won, and repeatedly received 1,000,000 won as of January 1, 197, 197; and

However, in full view of the purport of Nonparty 2’s testimony, the non-party 2 offered real estate as security through the non-party 1 who became aware of the third party’s introduction on December 11, 1969, and borrowed 8,000,000 won as of the fifth day of each month from the Plaintiff. The non-party received the balance of KRW 8,00,000 from the above 8,000,000,000 as the brokerage fee, after which the non-party 2 received the above 8,00,000 won as of August 28, 1970, the non-party 2,70,000 won as of October 22, 1970, the non-party 1,000 won as well as the money transaction amount of KRW 1,00,000,000 as an agent of the non-party 2 and the non-party 1,000,000 won as well as the above 30,06,000.

Therefore, according to the provisions of tax law, Article 1 (1) 9 of the Business Tax Act provides that "financial business" is one of the persons liable to pay the business tax, and Article 1 (2) provides that the definition and scope of business shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Business Tax Act provides the definition of the above business. Article 12 of the same Decree provides that "the term "business" refers to a continuous act of the same kind for profit-making purposes" and Article 12 of the same Decree provides that "a business of lending money and receiving interest thereon" as one of the financial businesses in 4, while defining the definition of the financial business. In light of these provisions, it is difficult to say that the financial business is subject to tax, and it is difficult to say that the act of lending money and receiving interest thereon is subject to tax for profit-making purposes, and it is hard to say that the above business income is imposed on the income accrued from the financial business, and it cannot be viewed that the above business income is subject to tax-making only for profit-making purposes or profit-making purposes under the Income Tax Act.

Therefore, each taxation disposition based on the premise that the above lending relationship with the plaintiff and the non-party 2 constitutes a financial business under the Business Tax Act is unlawful. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Yong-Ank, Myun (Presiding Judge)