Suwon District Court 2016Guhap6317 (Law No. 10, 2017)

Early High Court Decision 2015J 3830 (No. 29, 2016)

The amount of this case deposited in the head of the Tong shall be the non-business profit.

(1) In light of the fact that the instant money deposited in the Plaintiff’s passbook is not simply a mere intermediary for the said bill and check, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to reverse the said recognition, and thus, constitutes a non-business profit.

Article 16 of the Income Tax Act

2017Nu49210 global income tax and confirmation, etc. of invalidity of disposition

Ma-○

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court 2016Guhap6317 (Law No. 10, 2017)

8.01.19

8.02.09

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of global income tax of KRW 000,000,000 and penalty tax of KRW 000,000 shall be revoked on May 19, 2014 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on 2007.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for dismissal or addition of the following matters among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it refers to the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

○ 5 pages 4 "Nos. 8, 9-1, 9-2" are as follows: "Nos. 8, 12, and 9, 13-1, 2".

○ 5 pages 19 of the 19th bill discount of Gimman-A is merely a brokerage of the bill or check discount of Gimman-A, and the check was mediated upon the request of the highest BB, and the check was unrelated to himself.

○ 7 pages 4, “the instant income” is regarded as “the instant interest income.”

○ 7 pages 11.’ The following shall be added:

In addition, the plaintiff, based on the confirmation document of this case, provided that the plaintiff lent a total of KRW 00,000,000 to the building association of this case from May 10, 2005 to the profit of KRW 00,000,000, and the defendant presented the contents of the loan, which was adjusted to have no loan in the case of 2005, but to have some amount collected, and it cannot be viewed as a monetary loan to collect some amount before making a loan. In the case of 2008, it cannot be viewed as a monetary loan, and it is contradictory that the most BB paid the plaintiff the principal amount of KRW 00,000,000 to the construction association of this case, but it is contradictory that the disposition of this case based on the confirmation document including the above contents was unlawful since each of the above evidence revealed that the defendant did not include the interest income of the plaintiff in the above part of the loan of this case after being paid to the plaintiff of this case.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed due to the lack of oil, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.