Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap60569 ( October 08, 2014)

Whether a disposition imposing global income tax is null and void

Article 51 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act does not apply to the disposition of this case since the Plaintiff’s interest income constitutes a credit service provider that continuously and repeatedly lends money constitutes a business income, not an interest income. The disposition of this case does not contain any defect, and even if a domestic defect exists, it is not clear

2014Nu6746 Action to nullify the imposition of global income tax

o

00. Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap60569 decided October 8, 2014

May 1, 2015

May 15, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. On July 1, 2012, the Defendant confirmed that the imposition of global income tax of KRW 97,732,840 for the year 2005 against the Plaintiff, the imposition of KRW 568,952,970 for the year 2006, the imposition of KRW 258,221,340 for the global income tax of KRW 207, the imposition of KRW 235,647,970 for the year 2008, and the imposition of KRW 7,835,698,680 for the global income tax of KRW 209 is invalid.

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

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of the following matters, and thus, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) Parts 2, 16, 16, 2, 2, 18, 2, and 3, 2, 2, and 3, 2, 2, and 3:

“The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking detailed assessment of global income and revocation of the disposition of revocation as Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap50494, but was dismissed. The Plaintiff appealed as Seoul High Court 2013Nu50205, but was dismissed, and the Plaintiff appealed as Seoul High Court 2015Du35130, but was dismissed for a non-trial trial.”

(2) The interval between the third and third pages 8 through 9 shall be as follows:

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 7, and 26 (including the number of pages), the purport of the whole pleadings]

(3) Part 7, 18, “3% per month”, “10% per month”, “10% per month”, “3% per month”, “10% per month”, “10% per month”, “3% per month”, “10% per month”, and “3% per month” in Part 8, “10% per month”, and “10% per month”.

In the event that a credit service provider registered for a credit business makes a loan to an individual, the Plaintiff may not exceed 66% per annum (5.5% per annum).

1. On August 1, 2007, Kim 00 lent a total of KRW 8.8 billion (one month, possible extension period), KRW 11 billion on September 5, 2007 (one month, possible extension period), KRW 19.8 billion on a condition that he/she will receive interest at 10% per month (120%) on a condition that he/she will receive interest on August 1, 2007, KRW 2.8 billion on a condition that he/she will receive interest on KRW 1.5 billion on September 15, 2007; KRW 6.36 billion on September 14, 2007; KRW 1.1 billion on a condition that he/she violates the legal interest rate of KRW 1.1 billion on a two-month interest rate of KRW 8.8 billion on a two-month basis; and a credit service provider's maximum interest rate of KRW 1.1 billion on a one-month interest rate of KRW 1.1 billion on a one-month basis).

2. 8.3 billion won as the price for issuing new shares to Kim 00 on September 17, 2007 as the price for issuing new shares to Kim 000 et al.

On September 18, 2007, a loan was made on condition of receiving interest of 10% per annum (120% per annum), and a loan was made on condition of interest, and a loan was made on condition of payment of KRW 830 million per annum and violated the statutory maximum interest rate of the credit service provider.

Ro. The second 3% of the month is "10% per month", the fourth 3% of the month is "10% per month", and the fifth 3% of the month is respectively raised to "10% per month".

(4) If page 9 "(6,600,000 won of the leased principal x 2.5% per month)" is "(the leased principal)."

6,600,000,000 won x 2.5% per month).

(5) On face 12, the following shall be added:

“7) Criminal punishment against the Plaintiff

On May 26, 2009, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a year in violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Financial Users due to the following criminal facts (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Da1335).

The Seoul High Court on the grounds that the balancing of the judgment of the court of first instance is too unreasonable.

As 209No1489, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the first instance on the grounds of unfair sentencing on December 11, 2009, and sentenced the Plaintiff to a fine of KRW 30 million. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(6) If the 12th page is high, the 5th page shall be as follows:

[Reasons for Recognition] The evidence adopted earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 8 through 25 (including the number of pages)

(7) Parts 13, 12, 15, and 15, shall be improved as follows:

“3) Even if the facts acknowledged in a criminal trial are not subject to detention in a tax litigation, the fact of recognition of a criminal judgment that has already been established cannot be rejected as it is a flexible material unless there are special circumstances that make it impossible to employ them (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu411, Oct. 8, 1985; 2010Du23378, Aug. 17, 2012).

There are various testimonys of 00, 00, Ma-00, Ma-000, and Ma-00, which correspond to the allegations that the Plaintiff transferred the lending company to Park 00 on September 2007. The contents are as follows.

(1) A witness Lee 00: A person who does not borrow money from the plaintiff but receives money from Park 00.

was made.

② A witness inside 00: (a) the Plaintiff transferred the lending company to Park 00 on or around September 2007.

(3) Witness Kim00: At the time of the transfer by transfer of the lending company, Park 00 persons, at the time of the transfer by transfer by the lending company.

was found to have existed.

(4) Witness 00: On the part of the plaintiff, boxes00, 100, 2000

Although the Plaintiff did not actually operate the lending company, the Plaintiff returned to the Plaintiff to the effect that the Plaintiff was given a loan for the convenience of investigation, and accordingly, the written statement of the Plaintiff was prepared.

J. J. 1, 196, the 00 plaintiff, who was investigating this 00, actually managed the lending enterprise.

The plaintiff made a statement that he did not have been assigned to the lending company at 00 places, and there is considerable doubt as to whether the plaintiff did not transfer the lending company at 00 places.

However, the plaintiff was investigated by the prosecution in a criminal case against 00.

However, the time stated that the Plaintiff is a transaction between 00 and the Plaintiff, as of July 6, 2010 (Evidence 10 No. 10); the Plaintiff was investigated by the prosecution in a criminal case against Kim 00 on July 23, 2010, and stated that “from June 2006 to February 2010, 200, the Plaintiff is operating a 00 Human Investment and is operating a 00 Human Investment from February 2010” (Evidence 19-6). The Plaintiff asserted that it was returned from the criminal case against this 00 and stated that it was one’s own transaction, but it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion.

In addition, it is difficult to believe the above testimony even in light of the statements in No. 9, No. 13, 16, 17, and No. 19-8, which contain the statements in No. 9, No. 100, Park 00, and Kim 00, which contain the statements in No. 13, 16, 17, and No. 19-8.

Ultimately, the above evidence cited by the Plaintiff alone rejected the recognition of the criminal judgment as to the above 00, and it cannot be recognized that the Plaintiff transferred the lending company to Park 00 on or around September 2007, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s taxation disposition was defective as the taxation disposition against the third party.

domestic affairs, even if the Plaintiff transferred the leased enterprise to Park 00, the statement of Park 00

The first time of delivery to the Defendant is no dispute between the parties regarding the issue after the filing of the instant lawsuit, and it cannot be deemed clear that such defect is evident from the perspective of the general public as well as the tax authorities. Ultimately, as alleged by the Plaintiff, even though Park 00 was a real income earner who received interest from the Plaintiff, etc. from the Plaintiff, the instant tax disposition based on the judgment and statement in the criminal case against the Plaintiff on 00 that Lee 00 et al. borrowed funds from the Plaintiff, is a case where objective circumstances exist that make it possible for the Plaintiff to mistake that it is subject to taxation, and it can only be clarified whether it is subject to taxation or not, and thus, it cannot be deemed as void as a matter of course.

(8) On the 3rd page “Plaintiffs” and the 4th page “bases” shall be added respectively to the 15th page “Plaintiffs”, and the 15th page “Hands” shall be added to the 6th page “ hands, figures00,” respectively.

(9) Part 15, parallel 3, "Nam 00" shall be changed to "Nam 00".

(10) On pages 15, the following shall be added:

“On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there is no ground to impose tax on the interest income on the 0000tech as it is not included in the instant taxation disposition.”

(11) On the 16th page 12, the following shall be added:

Article 51 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the amount recovered in cases where a loan falls under bad debts shall be appropriated first to the principal, so it shall be deemed that there is no taxable income. However, the plaintiff is a credit service provider that continuously and repeatedly lends money and thus the plaintiff's interest income constitutes a loan business operator that is not a interest income but a business income, and therefore the above argument is without merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.