1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,000,00 to B at the interest rate of KRW 2.5% per month. On February 4, 2015, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 39,375,00 (principal KRW 30,000,000, interest rate of KRW 9,375,000) from the real estate auction procedure (Seoul Eastern District Court C).

In addition, on April 9, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,000,00 to D at an interest rate of KRW 2.5% per month, and on April 22, 2015, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 42,435,483 (principal principal KRW 30,00,000, interest KRW 12,435,483) from the real estate auction procedure (Sacheon District Court’s original support E).

B. In addition, the Plaintiff obtained a total of KRW 5,00,000 earned income while working in the F Accounting Corporation around 2015, but did not make a final tax return on global income tax base for income accrued in 2015 after year-end tax settlement.

C. The defendant is the above A.

In this context, on May 1, 2017, the Plaintiff imposed global income tax of KRW 7,082,950 (including additional tax) on the ground that the total amount of interest (i.e., KRW 9,375,000) out of the dividends falls under a non-business profit (interest income).

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【The ground for recognition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s No. 1 to 3, 16 through 19, and the purport of the whole pleadings as to Gap’s evidence No. 1

2. An entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) from February 15, 2013 to January 2, 2014, the Plaintiff leased a total of KRW 535,00,000 to many and unspecified persons at a high interest rate of 30 to 36% per annum. Although the Plaintiff was not registered as a credit service provider at the time, it is apparent that the Plaintiff continuously and repeatedly lent money for profit-making purposes in consideration of the amount of loan, frequency, period, interest rate, etc. of the loan, and thus, it is apparent that the Plaintiff continuously and repeatedly lent money for profit-making purposes. Therefore, the income earned by the Plaintiff through a monetary loan around 2015 should be taxed as “business income” (hereinafter “the Chapter I”).

(2) The Plaintiff’s loan principal is KRW 535,00,000, or the Plaintiff eventually includes the instant income amount.