It is difficult to recognize that the defects of the instant taxation disposition are significant and apparent, and it is difficult to regard the instant taxation disposition as void as a matter of course.

In a lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of an administrative disposition, if it can only be found that the facts are subject to the disposition and the facts should be accurately examined, it cannot be apparent that it is obvious that the mistake is serious, even though it is serious.

2013Guhap60569 Other global income and revocation of such disposition

LAA

O Head of tax office

October 8, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is engaged in credit business at the OO center located in the OOdong in Seoul OO-gu from June 2003.

is a business operator who had been employed.

B. According to the regional tax office’s determination that the Plaintiff had a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff’s interest income was omitted, and that the Plaintiff received the interest income, the regional tax office determined that the global income tax was imposed on KRW 1, 2005, global income tax on KRW 00, ② global income tax on KRW 006, global income tax on KRW 00, and KRW 208, global income tax on KRW 00,000, KRW 200,000, KRW 1,000,000 received from KRW 1,00,000, KRW 1,000,000,000, and KRW 2,000,000, KRW 2,000,000, KRW 2,00,000, and KRW 2,00,00,000, KRW 2,000,00,000,00,000,00,000.

C. Accordingly, on July 1, 2012, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of the total global income tax in 2005 through 2009 (hereinafter “tax disposition case”).

Facts that there is no dispute with recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 7 (including all virtual numbers)

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The taxation imposed on a third party, who is not the subject of taxable income, is a taxation imposed on a person who is not a legal person liable for tax payment, and its defect is significant and apparent, and thus, the Plaintiff transferred all of the loan business to ParkA on or before September 2007, and interest income arising from the loan for consumption of money thereafter did not accrue to the Plaintiff. In addition, since the content of the data prepared without any reasonable and reasonable ground against the will of the originator’s free will cannot be deemed as genuine taxation, the taxation imposed on this basis is null and void. The Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff lent money to EE and CCC against the will of the prosecutor. Accordingly, on the ground that the Plaintiff was conducting the loan business, the taxation imposed on the basis of the Plaintiff’s false statement and the global income tax in 2008 and 2009 on EE and ECC is null and void.

B. In addition, since the Plaintiff failed to recover the interest and the principal, the instant taxation disposition was made.

It is natural invalidation.

3. Determination

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) Interest income received from EE and CCC

A) ThisCC in the AA District Court 2010 highA00,000 (Joint) case is:

Criminal facts have been sentenced to five years of imprisonment.

B) The above judgment was appealed, and on July 15, 201, the AA High Court reversed the above judgment on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and sentenced thisCC to four years of imprisonment (AA High Court 201No000), and recognized the following facts. Although thisCC appealed, it became final and conclusive upon the final judgment of dismissal of the appeal on November 24, 201.

C) At the time of the prosecutorial investigation of its criminal case, thisCC borrowed O members on April 20, 2009, O members on June 11, 2009, O members on December 17, 2009, and O members on December 17, 2009 from the Plaintiff, and entered into 50% collateral and principal guarantee agreements with the Plaintiff.

With respect to loans made on June 11, 2009, the Plaintiff procured Owons, and thisCC provides the Plaintiff with Owons and commercial stocks with negotiable certificates of deposit, but it agreed to settle all funds within one month from the date of payment of the stock price and guarantee 10% interest on the principal. On June 11, 2009, the company issued OO CDs from the company’s internal reserve funds for capital increase with capital increase, and delivered the entire amount of OOs to the Plaintiff on April 20, 2009 as the repayment of the bonds for the loans made by OOs and the existing OOs as the repayment for the loans made by Os. In addition, EE related to EE, the amount of 1.3 billion won on June 20, 2008 is the principal guarantee, plucking, and 50% on the principal.

2009. 3. 23.부터 4. 1.까지 EEE 사 QQQ가 PPP분 취득비용으로 OO 원을 이DD게 지급하였는데, 이는 원고에게 기존 채무를 변제하기 위하여 지급되었다. 또한, QQQ가 이 건 외에도 2009. 12. 10. OO 원, 12. 23.OO 원, 12. 29.부터 12. 30.까지 OO원 합계 OO 원 중 일부를 원고에게 지급하였다. 즉, EEE의 유상증자 OO 원과 담보해제된 예금 OO 원 등 회사 사내유보금 OO 원 중 OO 원을 원고에 대한 채무 및 이자로 지급하였고, EEE 자회사인 QQQ를 통하여 200억 원을 PPP에 대한 지분 취득 비용을 가장하여실제로 OO 원을 원고에 대한 손실보전 및 채무변제 목적으로 지급하였다"고 진술하였다.

D) In the case of violation of the Act on the Specific Economic Price Punishment, Etc. (Embezzlement) with respect to thisCC, the Plaintiff stated that “thisCC operated a lending company until the end of 2009, and that “this is an OO on June 8, 2007, OO on July 8, 2007, OO on 2008, OOwon in 2008, OOwon in 2009, and OOwon in 2009. The Plaintiff was actually operating the Plaintiff, but ParkA was a representative director of UU, so ParkA received money, etc., and ParkA reported that it was immediately the Plaintiff. However, ParkA was a transaction between this and the Plaintiff.”

E) From October 2007 to June 2009, KR used at EE in EE, from July 2009 to July 2010, CC issued PO’s deposit certificates to the Plaintiff and issued cashier’s checks to the Plaintiff. On July 17, 2009, CC deposited O0 million won to the Plaintiff, POO was first deposited to this account, and POO was again issued to the Plaintiff on 10th of September 200, 200, POO200 had been issued to the Plaintiff on 1st of October 200, 200.

F) Based on the above statements, the Defendant received the interest OO(Owon of the leased principal x 10% per month x 3 months) from thisCC and EE on April 209, the interest OO(OOwon of the leased principal x 3% per month x 3 months) on the loan made on June 11, 2009, the interest OO(Owon of the leased principal x 3% per month x 3 months) on the loan made on December 17, 2009, and the Defendant received the payment of the interest OO(Owon of the leased principal x 3% per month) on the loan made on December 17, 2009. The loan made on December 24, 2007 from EE.

Interest Owon (Owon of the leased principal x 3% per month x 2 months), interest Owon (Owon of the leased principal x 3% per month x 2 months) on loans made on April 29, 2008 x 3% per month x 2 months) interest on loans made on June 20, 208 , OO(Owon of the leased principal x 3% per month x 2 months ), interest on loans made on January 15, 2009 x Owon (Owon of the leased principal x 3% per month x 2 months ), interest on loans made on January 23, 2009 x 3% of the leased principal x 2 months x 3% of the loan made on January 28, 2009.

2) Interest income received from the HuA

A) In the case of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against HuA, the Plaintiff, on May 20, 2008, stated that “The Plaintiff loaned O members to HuA as a security of MO stocks of NA, and the interest was 3.5 copies, the lower limit was 2 times, and the lower limit was 150% or less of the collateral ratio.” The Plaintiff sold the entire amount of R stocks after the lapse of one month, and settled it by selling them.”

B) On May 19, 2008, the Dog Tae-do prepared an agreement on the loan and loan of security of stocks with the OO Won interest rate of 3.5% and 30 days at maturity between the Park Jong-do, and stated that in its criminal case, the Plaintiff, a bond company, borrowed WW Korea and the capital class shares as security from the Plaintiff, a bond company, around 2008.

C) On the other hand, ParkA appeared as a witness of the O High Court of 2009NoOOO case of HuA, and stated that "UA is operated by the Plaintiff," Park A is merely a representative of name, practical work, and there was no decision-making authority as to how thisCC and the Plaintiff settled."

D) Based on the above statements, the Defendant rendered the instant taxation by deeming that there was an OO (Owon of the leased principal x interest rate 3.5%) for the interest income accrued from the loan from May 20, 2008.

3) Of the portion received from AA Capital, the interest income on the AA Capital stocks

A) In the case of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against South A.

“On December 28, 2005, HH shares 2 million won as security, 2.5% of interest per month, maturity of one month, and OE, and leased OO Won to AA Capital (or South AA) and until March 2006.

HH shares of the above HH shares on July 2006 due to the payment of interest after the receipt of the interest.

J. Until August 2006, the Plaintiff fully sold and recovered the entire amount. Moreover, on February 3, 2006, HH was recovered.

AA by leasing OO Won as security, and selling all of them and settling accounts;

was stated as "....."

B) In accordance with the above statement, the Defendant rendered the instant taxation based on the OO (OO of the leased principal x 2.5% per month x 3 months) on the loan interest accrued on December 28, 2005, and OO (O of the leased principal x 2.5% per month) on February 3, 2006.

3) Of the part received from AAA Capital, the interest income on the shares of GG

A) In a criminal case against the above South A, the Plaintiff’s “interest rate of 2.5% per month, and one month per repayment period of the above South A.

on March 2006, as a security for the OO shares of GG stocks to the Haman AA Capital.

On June 2006, the Plaintiff lent OG shares to AAAA Capital as security. The Plaintiff subsequently disposed of and settled all the above shares.

On August 8, 2006, after delivery to South A of the cover notes equivalent to the sum of 10 OO Wons.

The amount of discount paid to South AA, but on September 7, 2006, by South ACOO of the said cover notes

The court stated that the source was paid.

B) In accordance with the above statement, the Defendant rendered the instant tax disposition based on the OO (the leased principal of KRW 5,000,000,000 x 2.5% per month) on June 2006 and OO (the leased principal of KRW 5,00,000,000 per month x 2.5% per month) as of March 8, 2006, and the interest OO (the leased principal of KRW 1,00,000,000 per month x 2.5% per month) as of August 8, 2006.

4) Interest income received from KimB

A) In the case of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) for himself, KimB determined on December 22, 2006 as the OO shares of LL and the OO shares of the date of maturity on January 21, 2007 (the date of payment of the interest, December 21, 2006), he borrowed OB from the Plaintiff. On January 5, 2007, KimB stated that he was given a loan of LL shares as the OO shares of the LL shares, maturity date on February 4, 2007, and OB (the date of payment of the interest, January 5, 2007), and that he was given a loan of OB under the name of J.

B) The Plaintiff stated that, in criminal cases, such as violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against KimB, the Plaintiff operated an OOB bond office from June 2006 to February 2010, and that, from February 2010 to February, 201, the company operated SOB bond office. Around July 2007, the Plaintiff provided EEE OO stocks as security and loaned OO members.

C) KimS shall operate an OB debentures office around June 2006 in the above case.

for a period of four years from that time, the actual owner of the company has served as the chief. In this case,

The actual resignation is the plaintiff, and the representative was in ParkA. Park Jong-A is a formal representative.

Ga and KimS dealt with the work upon the Plaintiff’s instruction. Park Jong-A and KimS

The U.U.S. stated that the office of U.U. was “I.D.”.

5) Interest income received from PPP Rexroth;

A) In the case of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) for himself, Y stated that "YA shall give YA a total of KRW 7% of the OO in return for the provisional payment of the stock price for every three months, and YA shall sell PPsch Rexn shares on August 2009, where YA does not exceed one month, and PPPsch Rexn theory shall only give YA a total of KRW O."

B) The Defendant imposed tax on the basis of interest OO on July 2009, based on other statements that the Plaintiff was in charge of practical affairs and that the Plaintiff was operating the corporate office.

6) Details of the Plaintiff’s business registration and disposition by an investigative agency

A) The details of registration of corporate bonds companies in which the Plaintiff participated are as follows.

B) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s global income from the OO District Prosecutors’ Office on January 8, 2014 1, 2005

In 2006, the portion of the global income tax on global income was subject to the suspension of witness because it was insufficient to recognize that the amount recovered by the Plaintiff exceeds the principal.

Evidence adopted before the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 8 to 24

B. Determination

1) In the case of an administrative litigation that claims the invalidity of an administrative disposition as a matter of course and seeks the invalidity confirmation thereof,

The Plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the grounds for invalidity of the administrative disposition (Supreme Court Decision 199 March 10, 1992).

[Judgment 91Nu6030]

2) In addition, in order for a defective administrative disposition to be void as a matter of course, the defect is important in the laws and regulations.

of this section, which is significant in breach of such section, must be objectively apparent, and the defect shall be serious

In determining whether it is clear or not the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. are teleological.

At the same time, it is necessary to reasonably consider the specificity of the specific case itself.

F. The administration by an administrative agency, applying the provisions of a law to a certain legal or factual relationship

In a case where a disposition was taken, the provisions of the Act cannot be applied to such legal relations or facts.

(1) If there is no room for dispute over the interpretation of the legal principle, the administrative agency

applying the rule to a disposition, the defect is significant and apparent, but the

The legal principle that the provisions of the law are not applicable to the legal relations or factual relations is clearly stated.

If there is room for dispute over the interpretation because it has not been established, the administrative agency shall interpret it erroneously.

Even if an administrative disposition was issued, this is merely a mistake in the fact of the requirements for such disposition.

Clearly, any legal relationship or history that is not subject to an administrative disposition, and that is not subject to an administrative disposition

there are objective circumstances that could mislead the person to be subject to the disposition in respect of actual relations.

(2) If the action is to be taken, the court shall have to examine the facts accurately.

If it is apparent, it shall be apparent in appearance even if the mistake is serious.

In other words, it cannot be said that it would be deemed to be reasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da83802, Mar. 16, 2007).

A person who has no factual relations, such as legal relations, income, act, etc. subject to taxation;

taxation imposed on the taxpayer shall be deemed to be a significant and apparent defect, but it shall not be subject to taxation.

under section 48 of this title, which is subject to the taxation of any legal or factual relationship, shall not be mistaken

In the event of an objective circumstance, whether it is subject to taxation or not, in the event of such objective circumstance

If it is possible to conduct an accurate inspection, the external appearance of such defect, if any;

Since it is not clear that it is not possible to make such taxation disposition as such, it is reasonable to make a mistake in the fact of taxation requirements.

No one shall be deemed null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002).

3) Comprehensiveize the overall purport of the pleadings in each testimony of the witnessCC, the AAA, the KimN and the AA.

In this Court, thisCC is not a loan from the Plaintiff, but a loan from the Plaintiff.

The fact that the Plaintiff stated that he was provided with the loan company, the AA and the KimN who worked at the time the Plaintiff operated the loan company.

The Plaintiff stated that he/she transferred the lending company to Park around September 2007, and that thisCC was investigated.

A witness who was not the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff provided a loan to thisCC, India, and EE; however, for the convenience of investigation, the Plaintiff was allowed to reply to the Plaintiff so that the Plaintiff was given a loan, and accordingly, the statement made to the Plaintiff was prepared.

the hearing of this case, however, in light of the following circumstances, the above person

The facts alone establish that the defect in the taxation disposition in this case is significant and apparent in appearance.

Therefore, it is difficult to view the instant taxation disposition as an invalidation as a matter of course.

A) ThisCC is from an investigative agency to a court in its criminal procedure

consistently receiving a loan from the Plaintiff, and the terms and conditions of the loan and the transaction relationship with the Plaintiff

The statements have been made in detail.

B) ParkA, KimA, and Lee E-E shall all be UU A, KimA, and O-O

Entertainment’s actual operator, and ParkA’s statement to the effect that Park was in charge of practical affairs.

(c)

다) 안AA, 김NN은 원고에게 고용되었던 자이고, 특히 김NN은 QQ인베스트

먼트의 대표자로 등재된 자인데, 김SS은 QQ인베스트먼트의 실운영자는 원고이고,

The KimN stated to the effect that it has only the name of the representative.

D) Subsequent to the closure of the business registration regarding VVV Investment in 2005, the Plaintiff:

The name of business operator has been registered in another person's name other than his own name.

E) The Plaintiff itself also violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Crossing) for KimG

p) In criminal cases, such as “Obeber debentures office from June 2006 to February 2010”

을 운영하였고, 2010. 2.부터 현재까지 QQ인베스트먼트 사채사무실을 운영하고 있다"

state of such statement.

F) As above, a person who actually operated a lending company is not the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff.

in 207, it is difficult to conclude that interest income after 2007 does not accrue to the Plaintiff, and I

Nar, domestic affairs, and as alleged by the Plaintiff, the actual place in which LAA received interest from thisCC, etc.

The criminal history against thisCC, even if the CC borrowed funds from the Plaintiff

The taxation of this case on the basis of the ruling and statement in the case is subject to taxation.

In the event that there are objective circumstances that may mislead others, and whether it is subject to taxation or not.

If it is possible to accurately examine the facts, the defect may be found in appearance.

there may be no blanks.

4) In addition, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s prior interest and interest agreement between the Plaintiff, KimD and South AA.

Based on the statement as to the payment, this case's taxation disposition regarding RR, UU, DDR, and GG interest income was completed, and even if the plaintiff did not receive some principal and interest as alleged by the plaintiff, the defendant was at the investigative agency and court.

Based on their statements, this part of the taxation authority has determined each loan contract and calculated interest.

A person who does not have any factual relations, such as the legal relation or income or act subject to taxation;

In addition, it is difficult to regard it as taxation.

5) In addition, since the tax authority bears the burden of proving the legality of taxation, taxable income is taxable income.

In principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proof of necessary expenses which are the basis of the determination, but the need is required.

The deduction of expenses is not only favorable to the person liable for tax payment, but also based on facts that constitute the basis of necessary expenses.

The tax authorities prove that most of them are within the control area of taxpayers.

Since it is difficult to prove it or take into account the equity between the parties, the duty to pay taxes is difficult.

If it is reasonable to have the person prove it, it shall be returned to the taxpayer

person liable for duty payment in addition, if the occurrence of necessary expenses is apparent in light of the rule of experience.

It is against the rule of experience to regard necessary expenses as zero because there is no evidence or absence, and thus, taxation is contrary to the rule of experience.

It is possible to calculate by the method of the estimated investigation conducted by the authorities where it is impossible to conduct a field investigation.

to the extent that the tax authority must prove the amount and the taxpayer has more than

If necessary expenses are claimed, the taxpayer must bear the burden of proof (Supreme Court).

See Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10909 delivered on July 28, 1992

According to the evidence adopted earlier, the Plaintiff asserted the deduction of interest from the global income tax for the year 2007, September 14, 201, 201 on interest income granted to KimCC, the representative director of CCC, and the Plaintiff. The Defendant decided to reduce the amount of income accrued in 2005 by calculating the simple expense rate for the income amount accrued in 2006, and the amount of income accrued in 2007 by deducting necessary expenses from the standard expense rate for the income amount accrued in 2007, the amount of income accrued in 2008, and the amount of income accrued in 209 by calculating each standard expense rate for the income amount accrued in 208, the amount of income accrued in 2008, and the amount of income accrued in 209, the amount of income accrued in 2009, and the amount of income amount accrued in 207, but the Defendant did not assert that the amount of income accrued in 2007 did not actually be deducted from the necessary expense amount.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.