Busan District Court 201Guhap670 ( October 15, 2011)

National Tax Service Review Income 2010-0090 ( December 06, 2010)

Loan honorariums for illegal income shall be applicable to other income.

(As in the judgment of the court of first instance) The illegal income from the criminal act constitutes taxable income unless a measure to return to the original owner is taken, and the plaintiff et al. received the loan honorarium to freely dispose of and use it, and used part of it to pay overdue interest according to the original purpose, and the disposition that deemed it as other income is legitimate.

2011Nu268 The detailed global income and revocation of disposition

Song XX

Head of Eastern Tax Office

Busan District Court Decision 2011Guhap670 Decided July 15, 2011

March 21, 2012

April 18, 2012

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. The imposition of global income tax of 000 won for the year 2006, May 4, 2010, and global income tax of 000 won for the year 2005, filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on the instant case is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the following judgments. Thus, this court's explanation is based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

The Plaintiff asserts that the disposition of global income tax imposed by the tax authority on Park Park-A was partially revoked in the adjudication procedure on the ground that the illegal money and valuables were returned to the original owner before the taxation disposition, and that each of the dispositions of this case committed against the Plaintiff is unlawful in light of the court’s function and authority that the citizen’s remedy should not be understood as more than

In full view of the court’s results of the inquiry into the tax Tribunal, the head of the tax office of North Busan District on May 10, 2010 deemed that the other income equivalent to the additional collection charge was accrued to the Park Do on the grounds that the other income accrued from May 10, 2010, and imposed a global income tax of 000 won for the year 2004, global income tax of 2005, global income tax of 2006, and global income tax of 2006 for the year 2006, and requested the Tax Tribunal for a trial against it. On November 25, 2010, the Tax Tribunal decided to exclude the tax base and tax amount from the amount of income of each year for the reason that the Park Do returned the total amount of 00 won to the original owner prior to the above imposition. However, in the absence of any evidence to acknowledge that the above recognition alone belongs to the original owner of the money and valuables received by good offices and acceptance of trust, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this case is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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