Cho Jae-chul2010 Before 3965 ( October 30, 2011)

It shall not be deemed that he/she has received or has received the contract in a double manner, unless he/she paid the debt by subrogation.

Although it is alleged that it was an acceptance or an acceptance of a contract for the same purpose, not a substitute payment for the debt, it is alleged that it was an acceptance or an acceptance of a new monetary loan contract for the loan for the loan of the loan of the loan of the loan of the loan of the loan of the loan of the loan of the loan of the loan of the

2011Guhap3960 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Corporate Tax

XX Co., Ltd

The Director of the National Tax Service

April 18, 2012

May 23, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on September 6, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Daejeon regional tax office conducted an integrated investigation of the Plaintiff’s corporate tax from April 30, 2010 to June 11, 2010, and found that the Plaintiff leased KRW 000,000, totaling KRW 1000,000, to the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “P”) on March 8, 2006 and June 20, 2006, and received KRW 00,000 as interest on May 30, 2007, under the status that the Plaintiff received KRW 00,000,000 as interest rate, the building under the ground that was newly constructed on the part of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”). As the Plaintiff paid the obligation under XX, the Plaintiff was deemed to have received the interest of KRW 00,00 from the Plaintiff during the pertinent business year.

B. On September 6, 2010, the Defendant notified the Daejeon Regional Tax Office of the above contents, imposed corporate tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff for the business year 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 17, 2010, but was dismissed on June 30, 201.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

O is not subrogated to the obligations owed to the Plaintiff, but it takes over an overlapping acceptance or contract. Thus, the time of receipt of the Plaintiff’s interest income is not on May 30, 2007, but on April 19, 201, when the Plaintiff collected interest from the auction procedure for the instant land and its ground buildings, not on May 30, 2007. The Defendant’s disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

The following facts are acknowledged in light of the contents of evidence No. 3-1, No. 3-4, Eul evidence No. 4-1, No. 2, Eul evidence No. 6-1, No. 2, and Eul evidence No. 7.

1) The Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan agreement with XX on March 8, 2006 and June 20, 2006. The main contents are as follows.

2) On May 30, 2007, the Plaintiff drafted two copies of a loan certificate with theO. The main contents are as follows.

3) The EA and the OO representative director sent to the Plaintiff was drafted with a written confirmation to the effect that the OO subrogatedly repaid the Plaintiff the principal and interest KRW 000 and interest KRW 000 to the Plaintiff.

4) As to the voluntary auction case on the instant land, the Plaintiff submitted a claim statement with the following content to the Cheongju District Court.

In light of the following circumstances revealed in the above facts, namely, the monetary loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the OO and the terms and conditions of the contract such as overdue interest rate for each loan between the Plaintiff and the OO, and the representative director of the XX and the OO confirm that the O made a substitute payment for the Plaintiff of the loan and interest under XX, and the Plaintiff submitted a claim statement for the claim against the Cheongju District Court on May 30, 2007, regarding the case of voluntary auction for the land of this case, the Plaintiff submitted Cheongju District Court's principal for the Cheongju District Court's 00 won and the initial date for the payment of interest to the Plaintiff on May 30, 2007. The Plaintiff appears to have entered into a new monetary loan agreement with the OO on May 30, 207, and there is no other evidence to support the Plaintiff's assertion that the OO acquired the loan or interest in parallel with the Plaintiff's debt to the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

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