Criteria for determining whether interest income from lending money is a non-business interest income or a business income;

Whether interest income from the lending of money constitutes interest income for non-business use under Article 17 (1) 10 of the Income Tax Act or business income under Article 20 (1) 8 of the same Act depends on whether each of the above monetary transactions constitutes a business under the Income Tax Act, and whether such act is determined entirely by whether or not, like the provisions of Rule 2-2-3(17) of the Income Tax Act, it can not be determined exclusively by whether or not the above monetary transaction is an external purchaser, and in order to determine this, it should be determined in light of the general social norms by comprehensively examining all the circumstances such as whether or not the monetary transaction is planned and executed under its own risk and calculation, human and material facilities, social status of the person who committed the monetary transaction, and living conditions.

Articles 17 and 20 of the Income Tax Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

1. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of global income tax of KRW 312,458,860 on January 27, 1984 and its defense tax of KRW 62,54,130 on global income tax of KRW 312,458,860 on global income for year 1978, global income tax of KRW 1,030,024,650 on global income for year 1979 and its defense tax of KRW 86,707,840 on global income tax of KRW 198,531,320 on global income tax for year 1980 and its defense tax of KRW 42,749,050 on the same date shall be revoked on the same date, and the imposition disposition of KRW 6,538,660 on global income tax of KRW 1978 on KRW 32,05,620 for year 197, KRW 2980 for year 290, KRW 9750 for year 290.

2. The plaintiff 1's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiff 2 and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant, while the part arising between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant shall be divided into ten parts, which shall be borne by the same plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant.

Each disposition taken against the plaintiffs shall be revoked in entirety.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details of taxation; and

성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1,2호증의 각 1 내지 3, 갑 제13호증의 1 내지 205, 갑 제14호증의 1 내지 111, 갑 제15 내지 23호증의 각 1,2, 을 제1호증의 1 내지 4, 을 제2, 3호증의 각 1 내지 3, 을 제4호증의 1,5, 을 제5호증의 1,7, 을 제6호증의 1, 문서작성 명의인인 원고 1의 이름아래 찍힌 인영부분의 성립에 다툼이 없으므로 전체의 진정성립이 추정되는 을 제4호증의 6의 각 기재 및 증인 소외 1의 일부증언(단 뒤에서 배척하는 부분은 제외)에 변론의 전취지를 모아보면, 원고 1은 1978.9.경부터 1980.4.경까지 서울 강남구 반포동 소재 (아파트명 생략)아파트 (동·호수 생략)에서 사업자등록을 하지 아니한 채, 업무용 차량 5대를 보유함과 아울러 상시 7명의 종업원들을 고용하여 " (상호 생략)"라는 상호로 대금업을 영위하면서 위 기간동안 자기자금과 전주들의 타인자금등 도합 91,563,904,403원을 자기의 계산 아래 각 기업체 등에 월 3푼 2리 내지 3푼 6리의 고율로 대여하여 이른바 사채이자수입을 얻는 일방, 타인자금으로 대출한 부분에 대하여는 각 전주들에게 위 대출이자보다 저율의 이자를 각 지급하여 왔는데 그 거래내역은 별표기재와 같은 사실(다만 1979년 및 1980년 귀속분 전주들에 대한 각 이자지급액은 뒤에서 인정하는 바와 같이 괄호안에 기재된 금액이 각 정당한 금액이다), 이에 피고는 원고 1이 위 각 과세기간동안 얻은 총이자소득에서 전주들에게 지급한 이자액과 비과세소득인 단자회사 수입이자액을 각 제한 별표 "과세대상이자"란 기재 각 해당 금액(이하 편의상 이 사건 과세대상 이자라고 부른다)을 과세소득으로 확정한 다음 같은 원고가 단기금융업법에 의한 재무부장관의 단기금융업인가를 받거나 사업자등록을 필하지 아니한채, 즉 대금업을 하는 거주자임을 대외적으로 표방하지 아니한 채 비밀리에 음성적으로 사채거래를 한 것이므로 소득세기본통칙 2-2-3……(17)(비영업대금의 이익과 대금업의 구분)에 의거, 이 사건 과세대상 이자소득은 자산소득인 소득세법(1982.12.21. 법률 제3576호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제17조 제1항 제9호 소정의 비영업대금 이자소득에 해당한다하여 소득세법 제80조 및 같은법시행령 제131조 제1호 를 적용, 원고 1의 처로서 사업소득이 있는 원고 2의 기과세종합소득금액(1978년 귀속분 : 원고 2의 사업소득 5,285,818원, 원고 1의 이자소득 3,032,976원, 부동산소득 20,641,890원, 1979년 귀속분 : 원고 2의 사업소득 10,245,483원, 원고 1의 이자소득 7,305,045원, 부동산소득 35,981,860원, 1980년 귀속분 : 원고 2의 사업소득 9,537,553원, 원고 1의 부동산소득 57,198,060원)에 이 사건 과세대상 이자소득을 합산하여 동 합산으로 인하여 증액된 원고 2에 대한 주문기개 추가고지분 종합소득세 및 그 방위세액을 산출함과 아울러 원고 1이 전주들에게 별표 "전주들에 대한 이자지급액"란 기재 각 해당이자를 지급하고도 소득세법 제146조 에 따른 원천징수납부의무를 불이행하였다 하여 같은법(1976.12.22. 법률 제2932호) 제182조 제1항 소정의 원천징수납부 불성실가산세로서 1978년 귀속분 6,538,660원(전주들에 대한 이자지급액 523,093,041원×원천징수세율(25/100)×가산세율(5/100) : 10원미만버림, 이하 같다), 1979년 귀속분 32,055,620원(전주들에 대한 이자지급액 2,564,450,272원×(25/100)×(5/100), 1980년 귀속분 9,090,520원(전주들에 대한 이자지급액 727,241,906원×(25/100)×(5/100)를 각 산출한 후 1984.1.27. 원고들에게 위 각 해당산출세액을 각 부과고지한 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 위 인정에 어긋나는 증인 소외 1의 증언부분은 믿지 아니하며 달리 반증이 없다.

2. Determination on the global income tax and its defense detailed and disposition against Plaintiff 2

According to the general rules of income tax as mentioned above, the defendant asserts to the purport that the defendant's disposition that was subject to cumulative taxation of the income amount of plaintiff 2, the principal income earner, is justifiable, because the plaintiff 1 did not obtain authorization of the short-term financing business from the Minister of Finance and Economy or make business registration under the Short-Term Finance Business Act, in other words, the so-called "bonds play" is a resident who conducts the price business externally, and lends money to many and unspecified persons: Provided, That the defendant's disposition that was subject to cumulative taxation of the income amount of plaintiff 2, the principal income earner, is justified, considering the interest income received as non-business payment, and thus, the defendant's disposition that was subject to cumulative taxation of income amount of plaintiff 2, the principal income earner is justified.

However, the issue of which category of interest income from the instant taxable income acquired by Plaintiff 1 depends on whether the said Plaintiff’s monetary transaction constitutes a business under the Income Tax Act. In this case, whether it constitutes a business under the Income Tax Act can be determined entirely on the basis of whether the Plaintiff’s financial transaction falls under the category of the business under the said Income Tax Act, such as the basic rule of income tax or the Defendant’s assertion, or whether the Plaintiff’s external purchase of funds, such as obtaining the approval of the Minister of Finance and Economy or completing the business registration under the Short-Term Finance Business Act, or otherwise, it cannot be determined entirely on the basis of whether the Plaintiff’s external purchase of funds in question, other than the payment business operator’s external purchase of funds, should be determined on the premise that the Plaintiff’s financial transaction should not be deemed an unlawful interest income without considering the general principles of income tax or the Plaintiff’s share of interest income, and thus, the disposition of the Plaintiff’s financial transaction should not be determined on the basis that the Plaintiff’s financial transaction should not be considered as an unlawful interest income from the Plaintiff 1’s existing non-business income without the Plaintiff’s share of interest income.

3. Determination on imposition of additional tax on the plaintiff 1's failure to pay withholding tax

The plaintiff 1 asserts that the interest that he paid to the former owner does not have paid the interest amount to the former owner as a legal status of the borrower, but it is merely a mere fact that the former owner arranged a loan to the former owner and delivered the remainder of the restricted brokerage commission to the former owner by receiving interest from the former owner. In addition, according to each of the three evidence Nos. 1 through 3 of the evidence No. 1 to 3, it is apparent that the former owner's interest income received was subject to imposition of additional tax on the former owner's failure to pay taxes to the former owner. However, the latter assertion that the latter part of the witness 1's testimony, other than the former witness 1, did not have sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the former owner's failure to pay taxes on the former owner's tax withholding, and the latter part of the payment of additional tax on the former owner's interest income did not constitute a mere intermediary act between the former and the former owner's failure to pay taxes on the former owner's interest income and the latter's failure to pay taxes on the former owner's interest rate.

However, considering that subparagraph 5-4, 7, and 9-2 of the above evidence Nos. 5-7 and 6-7 were all the purport of pleadings 6, 25-1 】 (the amount of interest accrued for the year 1979 and the amount of interest accrued for the year 1980 21,201,94 which was paid to non-party 2, who had been the former owner of interest for the year 1979 ; the amount of 69,247,472 and the amount of interest accrued for the year 1980 ; the amount of interest accrued for the year 1980 ; the amount which was paid to the non-party 2, who had its own income for the year 1979 ; the amount which was paid to the non-party 3, who had not been the former owner 256,694,376) 】 (the amount of interest accrued for the year 1970 ; the amount of interest accrued for the year 297,97098

4. Conclusion

Thus, all of the plaintiff 2's claim of this case is just, and the plaintiff 1's claim of this case is justified to the extent that it seeks the revocation of the illegal part of the above recognition. Thus, the plaintiff 1's remaining claims are unfair and thus are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 89 and Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)