Where there is an implied extension between the parties to the due date, all of the amounts paid excluding the principal shall be subject to interest income.

The agreed delay damages arising from the delay of a monetary obligation constitute other income. The amount calculated by the agreed rate that a party to a monetary loan contract receives after the due date constitutes miscellaneous income, not as a matter of principle, but as miscellaneous income. However, where special circumstances are acknowledged, such as the extension of due date even if implied between the parties, it constitutes interest

Article 16 of the Income Tax Act and other incomes under Article 21 of the Income Tax Act

2014Guhap20880

KimA

BB Director of the Tax Office

October 24, 2014

January 30, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 000,000 on January 11, 2014 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 23, 2009, the Plaintiff, a representative director, entered into a contract for the business of developing and selling a lot of land (A evidence No. 3; hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”) with 00 square meters, such as 00 00 0,000 m2 and 00 m2,000 m2, around September 23, 2009. The main contents of the contract are as follows.

Contract

3.CC construction is to borrow a KRW 00 million to DoD and to set up a KRW 00 billion as a collateral for the instant real estate;

(c)

4. The construction ofCC directly in the presence of Gangnam at design costs, out of the above borrowed amount of KRW 100 million;

Payment to a service company and issuance of a tax invoice in the name of a corporation.

5. The borrowing period shall be five months from the borrowing date (including the principal and interest).

6.The amount of reimbursement shall be one billion won, and the interest shall be payable in two copies per month.

7. Within the period of the above five times, Daehan in the event that the amount of the above six times is not repaid, the amount of the real estate in this case.

A decision shall be made at KRW 00,000 per square, and the registration of ownership transfer shall be made toCC Construction. Matters concerning Gangwon's land

Any balance shall be determined by establishing a collateral security and by order of mortgage from the sale price after the purchase.

class.

9. The purchase of the instant real property by third parties, notCC Construction, from the date of the contract to the date of the contract, and the construction ofCC.

(2) If the agreement is not a security, transfer of right, or transfer of right, or any other act, the agreement shall not be

the time shall pay full amount of KRW 00,000 as compensation.

B. On September 23, 2009, the Plaintiff prepared a certificate of loan (Evidence B No. 4) in the name of Gangwon-do, stating that “The content of the lease of KRW 00 million to Gangwon-do,” which reads that “The content of the loan will be identical to that of the instant contract,” and completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security of KRW 00 million with respect to the instant real estate. On March 15, 2010, the Plaintiff additionally lent KRW 00 million to Gangwon-do and completed the certificate of loan (Evidence B No. 9, No. 5).

C. On April 19, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application for a voluntary auction of real estate with the court of 000 000 scambl,000 with respect to the instant real estate on April 19, 201, and received dividends of 00 billion won on July 26, 2012.

D. The Defendant imposed, on January 11, 2014, an global income tax of KRW 000,000 (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 000,000,000 (including KRW 00,000,000,000,000 of the leased principal as of September 23, 2009 + the leased principal as of March 15, 2010) constituted interest income (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On March 4, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the National Tax Service on March 4, 2014, but was dismissed on April 28, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, Eul evidence No. 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The amount distributed to the Plaintiff is not an interest but an amount of compensation for the failure of the business, which was paid by the Plaintiff. Moreover, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages on the ground that DD had sold the instant real estate at low price by filing an application for auction against the Plaintiff in violation of the instant contract, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 00 million to DD on February 28, 2013. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff obtained interest income of KRW 100,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000 won, which was paid from DD’s paid dividends, as other income pursuant to Article 21(1)10 of the Income Tax Act, separate from the taxation on other income pursuant to Article 21(1)10 of the Income Tax Act, on the premise that the Plaintiff obtained interest income of KRW 10,000,000.

2) Even if the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 00 million paid to DoD was loaned, only the interest up to the due date for repayment of the loan should be deemed as interest income. The damages for delay after the due date should be deemed as other income under Article 21(1)10 of the Income Tax Act, not the interest income.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) As to the plaintiff's first argument

In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier and the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned facts, namely, ① a contract signed on September 23, 2009 (Evidence No. 3) and a loan certificate (Evidence No. 4) signed on March 15, 2010 between the Plaintiff and Dodddddddddddddddddddddddddddgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggs

2) As to the second argument by the Plaintiff

The compensation for delay of payment of obligation does not mean damage to the payment itself which forms the original content of the contract, and it does not mean that the obligation is a monetary obligation, so the damages for delay of obligation is a penalty or compensation received due to a breach or termination of the contract as referred to in Article 21(1)10 of the Income Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da3070, May 24, 1994). Therefore, the amount calculated by the agreement that the parties to the loan loan contract receive after the maturity date falls under other income as a matter of principle, but it shall be deemed that the interest income still exists if special circumstances are acknowledged, such as the parties’ extension of the maturity date even if possible (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu7406, Mar. 28, 1997). In addition, the Plaintiff’s request for the repayment of the loan amount of KRW 100,000,000,0000,000 from the loan date to the loan date of KRW 100,000,00.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s loan claim amounting to KRW 100,000,000 due to an implied extension of the due date for repayment, and the loan claim amounting to KRW 00,000,000 from the time of loan to the date of payment falls under interest income under the Income Tax Act as interest income in proportion to the agreed interest rate of 24% per annum from the time of loan to the date of payment. Furthermore, the above interest income falls under the case where there is no agreement on the due date for payment of interest, and the time of payment is the same as July 26, 2012 pursuant to Article 16(1) and (3) of the Income Tax Act and the proviso of Article 45(9)-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which is the date of payment of the interest income in the instant disposition, is justifiable.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.