Daejeon High Court-2014-Nu-517 (2015.07)

Whether interest on borrowed money reported or omitted may be deducted as a loss carried forward from the amount of income of the following year;

(The same as the judgment of the court of first and second instances) If the loss was caused by the book kept and kept during the taxable period in which interest was incurred, it can be deducted as the loss carried forward in the following taxable period.

Article 45 of the Income Tax Act

2015du2406 Global income and revocation of disposition

aa

○ Head of tax office

Daejeon High Court 2014Nu517 (2015.07)

September 15, 2015

The part against the defendant shall be reversed, and the judgment of the first instance on this part shall be revoked, and this part of the lawsuit shall be dismissed.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

4/5 of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Determination of the Defendant’s grounds of appeal ex officio.

According to the records, around August 18, 2015, the Defendant filed the instant final appeal, and around August 18, 2015, pursuant to the purport of the lower judgment, determined a decision of correction to revoke ex officio a disposition of imposition against the Defendant regarding the part against which the Defendant lost. Therefore, regarding the revoked part of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant sought revocation of a disposition that was not extinguished, and thus, became unlawful as there were no

2. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

A. As to the second ground for appeal

Article 45 (2) of the former Income Tax Act provides that "In calculating the income amount by income and business income generated in the calculation of the income amount by income in the current year on the basis of the books kept and kept by a resident having any real estate rental income or forest income, any deficit remaining after deducting in the calculation of the global income tax base for the current year under the provisions of paragraph (1) (hereinafter referred to as "loss carried forward") shall be deducted by income in the order of the year in which such loss carried forward occurs, in calculating the income amount in the taxable period ending within five years from the end of the year in which such loss carried forward occurs."

After finding the facts as stated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the interest accrued from 2002 to 2004 (hereinafter “interest on the loan of this case”) on KRW 800 million (hereinafter “the loan of this case”) on the loan of the Plaintiff’s land as collateral is a deficit carried forward under Article 45(2) of the former Income Tax Act, and the Plaintiff’s loss occurred between 2002 and 2004 on the books kept and kept by the Plaintiff in order to deduct from the amount of income for calculating the global income tax base for 2005. The court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the loan of this case should be deducted from the amount of income in 205 on the ground that the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone alone is insufficient to

In light of the above provisions and relevant legal principles and records, such determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the deduction of losses carried forward under Article 45(2)

B. Ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 3

The gist of this part of the grounds of appeal is that, in light of the relevant evidence, the Plaintiff paid brokerage fees to BB, Cc, and Ddd and the Plaintiff transferred to e to e is clear ******* based on the fact-finding conducted by the court below in violation of the rules of evidence and based on this, the part exceeding KRW ***** in the disposition of global income tax for 2005 imposed on the Plaintiff on January 3, 201.

However, the admission of evidence, which is based on the fact finding and the premise thereof, belongs to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. This part of the ground of appeal is merely disputing the fact-finding by the court below, and it cannot

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and it is sufficient for the Supreme Court to directly render a judgment. Accordingly, the decision of the court of first instance as to this part shall be revoked, and this part of the lawsuit shall be dismissed, and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed, and 4/5 of the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder by the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by