Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Partnership-80349 ( April 20, 2018)

The omission of reporting by receiving special interest as a borrowed account is a fraudulent or other unlawful act.

The exclusion period of imposition for 10 years is applicable since the receipt of special interest as the borrowed account and omission of report constitutes fraudulent or other unlawful acts.

The exclusion period of the imposition of national taxes under Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Seoul High Court-2018-Nu-4113 ( August 14, 2018)

Park ○

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Partnership-80349

2018.07.03

.208.14

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. On January 2, 2017, the imposition of global income tax of KRW 23,100,000 and penalty tax of KRW 19,068,290 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the judgment of the court in this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following parts, and thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ 5 pages 4 of the judgment of the first instance court’s 5 pages “(it is difficult to see otherwise even if the Plaintiff ceased to use the account under the name of △△ after October 19, 2010).”

After the judgment of the first instance court, “(Supreme Court Decision 2017Du6991 Decided March 29, 2018 cited by the Plaintiff)” is added as follows: “The Supreme Court Decision 2017Du6991 Decided March 29, 2018, which held that a mere nominal name and subsequent incidental act cannot be deemed an active act derived from the purpose of evading tax, cannot be deemed an unlawful act arising from the objective of evading tax; thus, it is inappropriate to invoke the case differently from this case)

○ 5 14 pages 5 of the judgment of the first instance court added “(the money so confirmed is KRW 250,000,000)” next.

○ In the tax investigation conducted 16th 5th 16th son of the judgment of the first instance, “the plaintiff submitted a written confirmation to the effect that he received the special interest of KRW 462 million in the year 2009.”

○ From 5 pages of the judgment of the first instance court, 2. “The profits from a non-business loan” is added to “interest, fees, etc. paid by a person who does not engage in a business of lending money temporarily or contingently” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu9230, Mar. 27, 191).

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.