The case holding that interest income was generated even if the debtor's deposit for repayment is the mother and child at the rental rate, and the creditor did not receive it.

In order for the obligor to extinguish all his/her obligation such as expenses for execution, loans, and interest thereon until the date of deposit, the amount of his/her mother and child is minor compared to the total amount of his/her obligation, and thus, it is not a valid repayment deposit under the good faith principle. Thus, even if the obligee failed to receive the above deposit and the interest income is not realized, even if the obligee did not actually receive the above deposit, it is considerably mature and confirmed that his/her right to generate income is likely to be realized, and the total amount of the above deposit was preferentially appropriated for all the interest on the above loan and the obligee obtained such interest income

Article 17 of the Income Tax Act

Kimchii

Director of the District Office

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 17,810,260 and KRW 3,562,052 of global income tax for the year 1986 against the plaintiff as of January 16, 1990 and KRW 45,015,230 and KRW 9,03,040 of global income tax for the year 1987 and KRW 35,224,150 of global income tax for the year 198 and KRW 7,04,830 of defense tax for the amount corresponding to the year 1987 is revoked.

1. If Gap evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 1-5, Eul evidence 1-1-3, Eul evidence 1-1-3, and Eul evidence 8-1-2, the defendant loaned 320,00,000 won to non-party red evidence on July 24, 1986 and obtained income of 18,273,973 from the above lending date until November 28, 198, and then divided the amount of tax into 0.3,00,000,000 won for global income for 1-6,00,000 won for 1-6,000,000 won for 1-6,000 won for 1-6,000 won for 1-6,000 won for global income for 1-6,07,000 won for 1-6,000 won for 3-6,000 won for global income for 1-6,07,000 won for 1-6.

2. The plaintiff, on July 24, 1986, purchased an Dong government-produced factory owned by the Industrial Bank of Korea of Gyeonggi-gun with the money invested by the plaintiff, and agreed to jointly operate the business, such as Dong government-owned production and sale. In order to secure the recovery of investment funds, the plaintiff asserted that the amount of maximum debt is KRW 380,000,000 and KRW 100,000,000 and KRW 70,000,00 were 30,000,000 and interest income from the above loan interest income from the above 30,000,000 interest income from the above 30,000,000,000 won were paid to the above 30,000,000,000,000 won were paid to the above 30,000,0000,000,0000 won were paid to the above 300,000,000,0000 won were collected from 300,0.

However, the plaintiff's above assertion that the above loan 2, 4, 2, 3, 4-1 and 6-2 were not paid out to the above 0-mentioned loan 2, 00 won and 0-1, 70, 000 won and 7-2, 00 won were not paid out to the above 10-6, 00 won and 9-2, 00 won were not paid out to the above 10-6, 00 won and 10-7, 000 won and 20-7, 000 won were not paid out to the above 0-6, 00 won and 10-7, 00 won and 16-2, 00 won were not paid out to the above 5-6, 00 won and 0-7, 00 won were not paid out of the above 10-6,000 won and 16-1,000 won.

Next, the plaintiff's second argument is that interest income from non-business loans shall be treated as interest income pursuant to Article 17 (1) 11 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, delay damages from loans shall be included in non-business loans and interest income under the Income Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu598, Nov. 10, 1987; 87Nu598, Nov. 10, 198), and the plaintiff's above argument is without merit.

Finally, with respect to the above third argument by the plaintiff, the loss of monetary value decline due to the above price increase by the plaintiff's assertion can not be considered as a tax base amount under the Income Tax Act, and it cannot be a ground for illegality in the taxation disposition of this case. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Therefore, the defendant's taxation disposition of this case based on the above interest income to the plaintiff is legitimate. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation of the taxation disposition of this case is unlawful, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Young-il (Presiding Judge)