If the requirement of taxation in light of the empirical rule is proved, the other party shall be the counter-party.

If the burden of proof of the facts requiring taxation is imposed on the tax authority, but the facts alleged to have been proved in light of the empirical rule, it cannot be deemed an illegal disposition unless the other party proves that the facts involved were not eligible for the application of the empirical rule.

Article 127 of the Income Tax Act / [Liability for Withholding]

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 6,58,020 for the year 200, global income tax of KRW 117,222,830 for the year 200, global income tax of KRW 110,418,950 for the year 2001, global income tax of KRW 35,049,910 for the year 2002, global income tax of KRW 43,181,640 for the year 203, global income tax of KRW 43,181,640 for the year 203, global income tax of KRW 78,251,570 for the year 200, and interest income tax of KRW 83,837,450 for the year 201, and imposition of interest income of KRW 353,539,40 for the year 203, 2030 for the year 203.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, ○○○○ Hospital located in ○○○○○○ Hospital located in ○○○○○-dong, Seoul, ○○○○○○-dong, and two parcels (site 1,606 square meters, ground 7 stories, and underground 4 stories; hereinafter “instant building”). The Plaintiff, ○○○○○○○, an infant of the Plaintiff New ○○○○, who was running ○○ Hospital from February 12, 1994 to April 2004, at the time of the construction of the instant building.

B. The Plaintiff, New Do, New Do, established a hospital by leasing the instant building from the Plaintiff New ○○○○, and the lease deposit received KRW 4.5 billion from the instant building as collateral and paid to the Plaintiff New ○○○. From October 28, 1999 to February 6, 2001, the Plaintiff, at the time of the IMF, borrowed the foreign currency of KRW 610,000,000 (hereinafter “the dispute loan”) over four occasions from the Kim Jong-○, an overseas currency of KRW 6.5 billion (hereinafter “the dispute loan”), and used the bank debt 4.5 billion, which was borrowed from the hospital building as collateral for the payment of the initial lease deposit, and used the remainder of KRW 2 billion for the repayment of the loan in the overdraft.

C. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office notified ○○○ Hospital to the head of ○○ Tax Office and the head of the Gun/Gu Tax Office as a result of the tax investigation. Based on this, on December 22, 2004, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office notified the Plaintiff New ○○○ of the global income tax of KRW 173,140,69,690, and the global income tax of KRW 422,009,040 for the gift tax of between 1999 and 2003. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office notified the Plaintiff New Do Tax Office of the correction and re-audit of KRW 178,527,310 for the global income tax of KRW 178,527,310 for the year from 1999 to 203, and the Plaintiffs filed an objection to the re-audit on March 25, 2005.

D. In light of the current status of domestic operation, such as actual interest management, etc. on the outstanding loan borrowed from the Plaintiff New △○○○○, the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○”) re-notificationed the Defendant having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s domicile that the Plaintiff’s new △○ should be deemed to have lent the outstanding loan to the Plaintiff New △○○ (hereinafter “Plaintiff New △○”).

E. Accordingly, on October 7, 2005, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the interest paid by the Plaintiff New △○○○ was the interest income of the Plaintiff New △○○○○; (b) deemed that the interest income accrued to the Plaintiff New △○○○○ was the interest income of the Plaintiff; (c) deemed that the global income tax of KRW 6,558,050 for the year 199; and (d) global income tax of KRW 117,22,830 for the year 200; and (c) global income tax of KRW 110,418,640 for the year 201 (hereinafter referred to as the “first disposition”); (d) the interest income accrued to the Plaintiff New △○○○, a resident of the Plaintiff New △○○○; and (e) deemed that the interest income accrued to the Plaintiff New △○○○, a de facto resident, was reverted to the Plaintiff New △○○○○; and (e) deemed that the income tax accrued to KRW 250, 3050, 70.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1 through 1-9, 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1-1 through 1-5, 2-1 through 2-5

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. Case issues

The issue of this case is whether the loan borrowed by the Plaintiff New △△ was actually funds of the Plaintiff New △○, not the funds of the Kim○○, but the funds of the Plaintiff New △○.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Degree of proof

일반적으로 세금부과처분취소소송에 있어서 과세요건사실에 관한 입증책임은 과세권자에게 있다 할 것이나, 구체적인 소송과정에서 경험칙에 비추어 과세요건사실이 추정되는 사실이 밝혀지면, 상대방이 문제로 된 당해 사실이 경험칙 적용의 대상적격이 되지 못하는 사정을 입증하지 않는 한, 당해 과세처분을 과세요건을 충족시키지 못한 위법한 처분이라고 단정할 수는 없다.(대법원 1998. 7. 10. 선고 97누13894판결 등 참조). 따라서 이 사건 각처분에서와 같이 과세의 대상이 되는 실질적 거래관계의 주체가 원고들이 신고한 내겨과 다르다는 사실은 그 실체가 원고들의 지배영역 하에 있는 것이어서 원고들이 그 사실을 부인하는 한 피고가 이를 직접적으로 입증하는 것은 매우 곤란할 뿐 아니라 당사자 사이의 형평에도 부합하지 아니하므로, 피고로서는 경험칙에 비추어 이를 추정핳 수 있는 상당한 정도의 입증을 한다면 충분하다 할 것이고, 원고들이 그 실질적 거래관계가 신고한 내역과 같다는 사실을 반증하지 못하는 한 이 사건 각 처분은 적법하다고 볼 것이다.

(2) Facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged, either as disputed between the parties or as a whole, by taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the descriptions of evidence and evidence of recognition, evidence of recognition, evidence of 4-1 to 4-4, 9-1 through 9-3, evidence of 17-1 to 17-9, and evidence of No. 3-1 to 11.

(A) Kim ○-○ is the wife of the Plaintiff New ○○ and the vice versa of the Plaintiff New △△.

Classification

Date of contract

Borrowings

Borrowing Period

Interest Rate

Date of withdrawal

10

October 28, 199

United Nations 200 million

'99.11.01-'04.31

7% per annum

November 1, 1999

20

November 29, 199

10,000 United Nations

'99.12.01-"04.11.30

〃 4

December 1, 1999

3j.

April 28, 2000

100 million UN

'00.04.29-'05.28

〃 4

January 29, 2000

400

February 6, 2001

150 million UN

'01.02.06-'03.01.31

〃 4

February 6, 2001

Total

United Nations 600 million 10 million

(B) The Plaintiff newly established a loan agreement with ○○○○○○ branch of ○○○○○○ Bank (Account number: ○○○-82-○○○○○○○○○) and deposited the loan in the foreign currency passbook (Account number: ○○○-82--○○○○○○○○) in the name of ○○○○○ branch of ○○○○○○ Bank, which was located in the name of ○○○○ branch of ○○○○○○ branch of ○○○○○ (Account number: ○○-82-○○○

(C) The above loan agreement between the Plaintiff New △△△ and Kim ○○ (A4-1 to 4-4) is not indicated with an indication of the terms of delegation or the agent.

(D) The foreign currency passbook in the name of ○○○ was newly opened on July 14, 199, and the application form for the transaction of foreign currency deposits (B5) was printed on and after February 10, 2003. This was revealed to have been prepared by the person in charge of ○○ branch’s ○○○ Hospital’s ○○○ Hospital’s ○○○○ Hospital’s ○○○ Hospital’s ○○ Hospital’s ○○○ Hospital’s ○○ Hospital’s ○○○ Hospital’s ○○○ Hospital’s

(E) The Kim○○ did not stay in the Republic of Korea on the date of opening the foreign currency passbook prior to, or on the date of concluding a contract for borrowing foreign currency and the date of withdrawing the loan.

The date of a loan contract

Whether domestic residents reside

The date of withdrawal of loan

Whether domestic residence is resident;

(Glaver○)

○ Kim

New Governing Province

o October 28, 1999 (1)

Non-Stay

Domestic Residence

November 01, 1999

Non-Stay

November 29, 199(2)

Sojourn (Entry on the date of the contract)

Domestic Residence

December 01, 199

Sojourn

200.04.28 (Third Motor Vehicle)

Non-Stay

Domestic Residence

200.04.29

Non-Stay

201.02.06(4)

Fluoral Rule

Domestic Residence

201.02.06

Non-Stay

Date of contract

Deposit

monthly income tax

A lessor

A lessee;

194.01.05

4 billion won

25 million won

Hyo

New Governing Province

195.02.09

8.5 billion won

-

197.01.01

4.5 billion won

33 million won

5.01

4.5 billion won

27.5 million won

200.01.01

4.5 billion won

33 million won

201.01.01

4.5 billion won

25 million won

201.05.01

4.5 billion won

23 million won

201.06.01

4.5 billion won

20 million won

201.08.01

4.5 billion won

10 million won

202.02.01

4.5 billion won

20 million won

202.07.01

4.5 billion won

25 million won

204.03.22

4.5 billion won

30 million won

Hyo

○ ○

(F) The annual rental deposit and monthly rent for the instant building are as follows.

(사) 당초 원고 신☆☆의 임차보증금 40억 원에 대하여 ♧♧세무서장이 자금출처 조사 후 증여세 약 34억 원을 부과하자, 원고 신☆☆는 1995. 2. 28. 현재 이 사건 건물의 임차보증금은 85억 원으로서, 이중 45억 원은 외환은행에서 대출을 받고, 나머지 40억원은 원고 신○○가 일본으로부터 원고 신☆☆ 명의로 가져와 형식적으로 ○○○병원의 임차보증금으로 처리한 것이라고 국세심판원에 불복청구를 하였고, 국세심판원은 1997. 8. 20. 이에 대하여 일본에서 원고 신○○에 의하여 조성되어 국내에 유입(1991. 10. 29.부터 1991. 12. 27. 사이에 원고 신○○의 통장에 입금됨)된 이후 국내 금융거래 및 자금흐름 현황에 달리 반증이 없는 점, 위 자금이유입·사용될 당시 원고 신☆☆는 일반외과 전공의 과정을 이수하고 있었던 점, 이들 부자 명의 계좌가 동일한 시기, 동일한 은행(지점)에 개설되어 운용된 점 등의 제반 정황증거를 종합하여 볼 때, 위 자금은 실질적으로 원고 신○○가 조성한 자금을 원고 신☆☆의 계좌를 통하여 관리하다가 인출하여 ○○○병원의 신축공사대금으로 사용하면서 회계장부상으로만 형식적으로 위 병원 임대차보증금으로 계상한 것일 뿐, 위 자금이 원고 신☆☆에게 증여 되었다거나 임차보증금이 현실적으로 수수되었다고 보기는 어렵다는 사유로 과세한 증여세를 취소하도록 결정하였다.

(아) 원고들의 2005. 3. 7.자 이의신청과 관련하여 김○○은 2005. 7. 29. 김○○은 서울지방국세청에 아래와 같이 답변하였다.(을10-2, "한글을 잘 몰라서 일본말로 씁니다."라고 기재되어 있다).

The financing of the foreign currency loan is extended to 6.1 billion won, which has changed to 3 persons who own all the money of the principal and f. 4 times. While the principal currently operates a small telecom in Japan, the loan in question is not related to the amount of the principal's telecom operation income, etc., since 30 years prior to the previous 30 years, the loan in question is funds raised from the dynamics of the student f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f.

(i) On January 11, 2006, the notice given by the National Tax Service to the Director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office (Notice) is as follows.

(1) Contents of the statement by Kim○

◦ 계약은 서울에 있는 한 음식점(a restaurant)에서 계약에 관련된 사람들 및 다른 몇 명의 사람들에 의하여 대리로(through a proxy) 체결되었다.

◦ 대부금(loan capital)은 은행예금(bank deposit)으로부터 지불되지 않아, 그 출처에 대한 자료 등을 수집할 수가 없다.

◦ 원금과 이자는 회수한 바가 없다.

② The total amount of ○○○ Limited Liability Company’s investment was 3 million UN and 1/2 each invested by Kim○ and New △△△ in 1/2, respectively. The type of business is in inn management, abandonment, monetary loans, real estate brokerage, mediation, etc.

Note Notes Notes

State Action

Date of birth

the withdrawals

○ Kim

Japan ASEAN

on March 20, 1947

1.5 million UN

New Governing Province

Japan ASEAN

Oil Monomen

1.5 million UN

Details of the stockholders from 2001 to 2003 shall be as follows:

③ With respect to the detailed particulars and amount of the property disposed of by new ○○ from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2001, new ○○ did not file a tax return on capital gains from 1998 to 2001, and there was no details on the disposal of the property.

(j) On June 10, 200, Kim ○ prepared a power of delegation (A.9-1, 9-2) with the content that it was delegated to Plaintiff Shin ○○○ by December 31, 2005 to operate his/her financial assets in Korea. The said power of delegation was written in Korean (A.9-2) and on the other hand, Kim ○ entered Korea on June 12, 2000, and was not staying in Korea as of June 10, 2000.

(k) The registration of ownership transfer was completed on July 16, 2002 on the ground of sale and purchase on December 27, 1996, ○○○○-dong 157, 101, 105, 105 (hereinafter referred to as “○○ apartment”) in Seoul, ○○-gu ○○○○○-dong 157, 101, and 105 (hereinafter referred to as “○○ apartment”). The price of the apartment was exchanged with 27,976,734, which was withdrawn from the foreign currency passbook in the name of Kim○-○○○-dong ○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○-dong ○

(l) ○○○○○○○○-dong 6 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (244.549 square meters, approximately 74 square meters) sold a total of KRW 1,845,765,00, including KRW 320,000 on September 26, 2003 from one other (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○”). After having made a registration of preservation of ownership on August 4, 2004, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○○○○○○”). The remainder of the intermediate payment and the remainder of the remainder of the remainder of the intermediate payment of the Plaintiff 100 on March 18, 2001.

(m) On May 31, 2004, Plaintiff ○○○ stated that “○○○○○○○○○○ Office stated that “The new △△△△△△ Office is responsible for its official book of accident, and the hospital management is simple, making it possible to manage the administration and accounting affairs other than the hospital.” “The Gim○○○ became aware of about 10 years prior to the establishment of the ○○○ Association of the Republic of Korea, which received the introduction that ○○○○○○○○ branch office would have the ability to borrow money by requesting the head of ○○○○○ branch office to borrow money.” “The contract was directly made with ○○○○○, the agent, and the agent did not doubt the agent’s position,” “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ branch office had been aware of the name of △○○○○○○ branch office’s investment in Japan, and it did not want to manage the account of △○○ apartment branch office’s investment in the initial account of △○○○○.”

(A) The Kim Dong-won was the wife of the Plaintiff ○○○○○, and the account account of ○○○○○ branch in the name of Kim Dong-dong, Kim Dong-dong (Account number: ○○○○○-○○○○○○○○○○○) was deposited in a number of checks on which details of the revenue amount of the hospital and the cost of maintaining the proceedings and the cost of maintaining the proceedings. On February 5, 2001, the KRW 100 million was deposited in the account on February 6, 2001 at the ○○○ branch account (Account number: ○○-○-○○○○○○○○○○) in the name of ○○○○ branch in the name of Kim Dong-dong.

(3) Presumption of taxation requirements in light of empirical rule

(1) As seen above, in light of the fact that ○○○○○○○ apartment building’s loan account was opened in the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the date of withdrawal of outstanding loan (except for the second loan) and the fact that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was in the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ apartment building’s loan account, and the fact that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was in the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s new account opened in the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was in the name of ○○○○○○○○’s new account, and the fact that ○○○○○○ was in the name of 5,000 new account opened.

(4) The plaintiff's reflective evidence

As to this, the Plaintiff’s loan is funds owned by Kim ○-○, and the foreign currency passbook in the name of Kim ○-○. Around June 1999, Kim ○○-○ was directly visited and prepared at the ○○○○○ branch of the bank, but only opened through the Plaintiff’s new ○○○○. The loan contract was also made by Kim ○○-○ directly visiting the Plaintiff’s new ○○ branch of the bank with the ○○○○ branch of the ○○○○○○ branch of the ○○○○○○○○○ branch of the ○○○○○○○○○ branch, and was made on the date near the actual date of withdrawal. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the ○○○○ branch of the ○○○ branch of the ○○○○ branch of the ○○○ branch of the ○○○○ branch of the ○○ branch of the ○○ branch of the ○○ branch of the ○○ branch of the ○○○ branch of the case, it seems to be unlawful.

(5) Sub-decisions

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case, which the actual owner of the loan at issue considers as the Plaintiff New○○, is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.