1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Details of the disposition

The reasons for this part are as follows: (a) in addition to the fact that the court did not consider “the instant loan” as “the instant loan,” and the said loan as “the instant loan,” it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (section 3 and the last act).” (b) As such, this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition was that the Plaintiff, from December 2, 2013 to June 2, 2016, concluded an agreement to cancel the agreement to pay interest for the pertinent month retroactively on the date of the payment of interest and add the amount equivalent to the interest to the principal. At least, the Plaintiff unilaterally renounced the interest of the instant loan.

Therefore, since there is no interest payment agreement in 2014 and 2015, and there is no money received as a interest, and there is no interest income amount, the instant disposition different from this premise is unlawful.

The Plaintiff’s money received from B as the repayment of the instant loan amounting to KRW 931,890,000 in total, and the principal amount is considerably less than KRW 1,655,90,000. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant loan constitutes a claim that cannot be collected.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 51 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, interest income in 2014 and 2015 should be calculated as non-existent.

Attached Form 1 of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows.

According to Article 45 subparagraph 9-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, interest income from non-business loans among interest income shall be the receipt date of the interest payment under the agreement.

The fact that this case’s interest constitutes a non-business loan interest does not conflict between the parties, and that the Plaintiff agreed to receive interest on the second day of each month while lending money to B is as seen earlier. Thus, this case’s taxable period in 2014 and 2015.