early 2010 Heavy3947 ( November 30, 2011)

The remainder after deducting the unpaid principal from the amount received by the Plaintiff shall be deemed the Plaintiff’s interest income.

Although there was no clear agreement on the order of appropriation, it seems that the loan principal was preferentially appropriated for the debtor. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the remainder after deducting the unpaid amount from the loan principal of the plaintiff was paid to the plaintiff.

2011Guhap1843 global income and revocation of disposition

XX Kim

The Director of Incheon Tax Office

June 21, 2012

July 26, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 000 of global income tax for the year 2004 and KRW 000 of global income tax for the year 2006 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2010 is revoked (for example, “00 won” and “00 won” as stated in the application for modification of the purport of the claim are apparent that they are clerical errors).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff lent KRW 000 to thisA, and KimB (the Plaintiff’s punishment) lent KRW 000 to thisA, respectively, and thisCC (Earna) jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of the Plaintiff and KimB to the Plaintiff and KimB.

B. On or around June 27, 2004, the Plaintiff and KimB agreed that the agreed amount shall be KRW 000,000, whichever is to be paid to the Plaintiff and KimB by reducing part of interest from January 13, 2001 to June 30, 2004, and the agreed amount shall be KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00.

C. The Plaintiff received KRW 000 from thisCC in cash for the repayment of the principal and interest of the above loan around 2004, and around June 2004, thisCC received KRW 000 out of KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which was paid by thisCC, as compensation for accommodation of 49,587㎡-gun, Chungcheongnam-do around the end of June 2004. KimB received KRW 00.

D. On September 1, 2010, the Defendant: (a) deemed the remainder of KRW 000 which the Plaintiff deducteds the principal amount of KRW 000 from the above CC (=00 won +000) as interest income; (b) imposed global income tax of KRW 000 for the year 2004; and (c) deemed the said KRW 00 as interest income to be paid by the Plaintiff from A to March 20, 206; and (d) imposed KRW 000 for the global income tax of KRW 00 for the year 2006 on the Plaintiff.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 29, 2010, and the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision on November 30, 201 that the Defendant imposed global income tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on September 8, 2010 on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on September 8, 201, regarding the disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 000 on non-business profits (i.e., loan principal of KRW 000-GB) from KRW 000 on the non-business profits (i.e., KRW 000 on the loan principal of KRW 00 on the GimB) and deducted the tax base and tax amount by deeming that it was appropriated to pay the principal of the loan of KimB, and the remaining claims are dismissed.

F. According to the purport of the above decision on December 12, 201, the Defendant corrected the amount of the global income tax for the Plaintiff in 2004 to KRW 000 (hereinafter the above part of the global income detailed disposition as of September 1, 2010) (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The loan of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s wife against the Foreign Exchange was KRW 000, and KRW 000,000, but the Plaintiff and the Korea-Japan and KimB agreed to receive only KRW 000,000, out of the principal and interest of the loan unpaid between this on June 27, 2004 and LeeB. Thereafter, since the Plaintiff and KimB received KRW 000,000, which were less than the principal and interest of the loan, all of which were appropriated for the principal, interest income did not accrue.

(2) Of the 000 won that the Plaintiff received from thisCC, 000 won (=00 won-00 won) was unable to engage in a direct bank transaction on behalf of KimB, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 000 by adding the interest title to the Industrial Bank of Korea account in the name of the Plaintiff used by KimB after receiving the repayment for the loan from KimB on behalf of KimB. Nevertheless, the Defendant issued the instant disposition on the premise that the Plaintiff received 2000 won from thisCC in 2004 and 000 won that the Plaintiff received from thisCC until March 20, 206, deeming that the Plaintiff received or was to receive as repayment for the Plaintiff’s loan claims, and that interest income was accrued to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the instant disposition should be revoked as unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

(1) Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006)

Article 16 (Interest Income)

(1) Interest income shall be the following income generated in the relevant year:

12. Profits accruing from a non-business loan;

(1) Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 120323, Oct. 15, 2007)

Article 45 (Receipt Date of Interests)

The receipt date of the gross amount of interest incomes shall be the following dates:

9-2. Profits accruing from a non-business loan;

The payment date of interest pursuant to the agreement: Provided, That in cases where interest is paid without an agreement on the payment date of interest or before the payment date of interest is made pursuant to the agreement or where interest is paid excluded from the calculation of gross income pursuant to the provisions of Article 51 (17), such

C. Determination

(1) Determination as to whether interest income has accrued

The plaintiff loaned 00 won to thisA, KimB, 000 won, and the plaintiff and KimB, on June 27, 2004, respectively. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff and KimB made 00 won out of the principal of the loan to the plaintiff and KimB, 'thisCC,' and 'thisA shall determine 00 won as a result of the partial reduction of interest income from the loan to the plaintiff and KimB, and pay 00 won out of the agreed amount. 'A shall pay 00 won to the plaintiff by March 20, 2006. 'A shall pay 00 won to the plaintiff by March 20, 200, 'A shall pay 00 won to the joint and several surety, and 00 won, 'A' shall be viewed as being paid 00 won from the principal of the loan to the plaintiff and 's principal of the loan to the 000 won from the above 'EB'.

In regard to this, the plaintiff asserts that the loan principal of this case to this case is KRW 000, and the loan principal of KimF is KRW 000,000, and the interest income was paid by thisCC was all appropriated for the principal, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge this only, and the testimony of this case and the witness A and KimB is insufficient. There is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Rather, considering the overall purport of the arguments in the statement of the evidence Nos. 5 and 8, in the complaint of this case, the plaintiff asserted that the loan principal of this case is KRW 00,00, and the loan principal of KimB was 00,000, and that the plaintiff stated to the effect that it was received under this name at the time of the tax investigation due to this case, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(2) Determination as to the assertion that the Plaintiff received KRW 000 out of the amount received from E as repayment for the loan claim by KimB

As seen earlier, KimB lent KRW 00 to thisA. According to the statement of No. 7, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 000 with a cashier’s check on August 3, 2004 (Account No. 121-0000 -000-0000) under the Plaintiff’s name on August 3, 2004, it is recognized that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 121-00,000 with a cashier’s check. Meanwhile, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of No. 4, KimB was directly engaged in bank transactions on July 2004, and received KRW 00 from thisCC. In light of the above facts alone, there is no evidence to deem that KimB used the Bank’s account under the name of this Plaintiff, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received KRW 00,000 out of the amount received from thisCC under the name of KimB’s repayment, and there is no other evidence to support this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.