west 2013 0086 ( March 21, 2013)

Whether the Plaintiff received profits from non-business loans

The loan agreement for consumption contains interest and commission fees, and the disposition imposing this case is legitimate in full view of the receipt of the Plaintiff’s signature and the witness’s testimony.

2013Guhap15965 global income and revocation of disposition

X Kim

The Director of the Pacific District Office

June 3, 2014

July 8, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 of global income tax for the 20x year belonging to the Plaintiff on November 9, 2012 and KRW 000 of global income tax for the 20x year belonging to the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 201, 201, the Director of the Central Regional Tax Office of China issued a tax investigation with respect to Laaaaaaa corporation, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data that the interest income accrued by the Plaintiff from lending KRW 00 million to the non-party company during the 20x year and 2008 taxable period was KRW 20x year and KRW 000,000 for 20x year and KRW 20x year.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff received 000 won and 2000 won from the non-party company’s non-party company’s profit from the non-party company’s 20x year, and determined and notified the Plaintiff on the x. x. x. 200 won from the global income tax for the 20x year and the global income tax for the 20x year from the 20x year. Meanwhile, it was revealed that the interest income for the 20x year has been excessively appropriated, and there was a need to correct the already paid tax amount, and the Defendant, on the x. x. 20x. 20x. x. 20, the Plaintiff additionally notified the Plaintiff on the 20x year’s global income tax for the 20x year and the global income tax for the 20x year from the 20x year (hereinafter from the 20x to the 20x. x. 200).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for judgment x.x., and the Tax Tribunal decided to re-audit the Plaintiff’s interest income x.x. x. x. x., to rectify the tax base and tax amount according to the results thereof.

D. After re-audit was conducted, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the initial disposition is maintained as it is.x.x.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 10, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Around x.x. x. Around x. x. x. b, the Plaintiff lent KRW 00 million to Ec., the representative director of the non-party company. The loan agreement for consumption states that “5% (per annum) interest rate was stated.” However, Ec was unable to reduce interest rate of KRW 5 billion and commission rate of KRW 1% while c took advantage of the Interest Limitation Act, and only 20 million interest rate was interest rate of KRW 30 million was interest rate to the Plaintiff. Thisc paid interest rate of KRW 0 million, but the Plaintiff demanded that the interest rate of KRW 0 million be paid, and the Plaintiff prepared 6 receipts different from the actual facts without any choice. The Plaintiff was paid KRW 6 billion from the principal amount of KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000 won, and the Defendant did not obtain the interest rate of KRW 60,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff.

B. Relevant statutes

(1) The former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009)

Article 16 (Interest Income) (1) Interest income shall be the following income generated during the relevant year:

12. Profits accruing from a non-business loan;

(2) The interest income amount shall be the gross income amount during the relevant year.

(3) Matters necessary for the scope of interest income under the provisions of each subparagraph of paragraph (1) and interest income amount under paragraph (2) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff, based on the introduction of 20x.x.x. x. Austria, lent KRW 00 million to c., which was the representative director of the non-party company, and the Plaintiff and c.b. agreement on the loan for consumption was made between 20x.x. x. x. The main contents are as follows.

· omitted-

(2) The Plaintiff drafted a receipt stating that c.i.e., 20x.x.x.x.x.x.x., 20x.x.x.x.x.x.x., 20x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x. the receipt of KRW 00,00 for a monthly interest and fee on the loans ( billion).

(3) Lee C has repaid to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 00 billion out of the loan principal of KRW 20x.x.x. The agreement on a loan for consumption was made between the Plaintiff and Lee C on the same day.

· omitted-

(4) Thisc had fully repaid 20x.x.x. the remainder of the loans to the Plaintiff. The repayment was made by means of transfer of the Plaintiff’s money from the company’s account to the Plaintiff’s account on the same day.

(5) On the other hand, the non-party company submitted a letter of confirmation that the non-party company borrowed money from the non-party 20x.x.x. x. x. m. to the director of the Central Regional Tax Office, paid the following interest as follows. The non-party company confirmed that the non-party company did not perform withholding tax on interest income. On the other hand, it recognized that the non-party company was paid interest in accordance with the content of the certificate prepared by the non-party company.

(6) In order to pay interest to the Plaintiff from the account of the non-party company, KRW 0 million was withdrawn, and KRW x. x. x. x.0 million was withdrawn.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, 4, Gap evidence 6 evidence 9, Gap evidence 7, 8, Eul evidence 4 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, 1. 0% of the interest rate of 0.0 billion won paid to the Plaintiff, 2.0% of the total amount of 0.0 billion won paid to the Plaintiff, 3.0% of the interest rate of 0.0 billion won paid to the Plaintiff, 4.0% of the total amount of 0.0 billion won paid to the Plaintiff, 6.0% of the total amount of 0.0 billion won paid to the Plaintiff, 1.0% of the 20.0 billion won of the 20.0 billion won of the 20.0 billion won of the 20.3.0 billion won of the 20.3.0 billion won of the 20.0 billion won of the 20.4 billion won of the 20.

3. Conclusion

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