Busan District Court-2018-Gu 20284 (Law No. 17, 2018)

Whether income from a lending of money is approved shall be determined by taking into consideration all the circumstances, such as the profitability, continuity, and the difference in interest of the lending of money.

In full view of the circumstances that continuously and repeatedly lend funds to many unspecified persons and receive interest at a high rate during several years, income from the above lending constitutes business income.

Article 4 of the Income Tax Act shall be classified.

2018Nu22791 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.

IsaA

The director of the tax office of Luxembourg

Busan District Court Decision 2018Guhap20284 Decided August 17, 2018

November 23, 2018

December 14, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. On February 26, 2017, the Defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 55,968,50 for the year 201, KRW 13,689,433 for the year 2012, KRW 14,552,119 for the year 2013, and KRW 29,706,568 for the year 2014 for the year 2014.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this Court concerning this case are as follows. The plaintiff further determined as to the plaintiff's assertion that it had been repeatedly emphasized at the trial or newly claimed, and the " September 19, 2016" in Part 5 of Part 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the " September 19, 2006" is " September 19, 2006." Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the portion of the instant disposition against KimB among the instant disposition is unfair, since the Plaintiff agreed to terminate the claims and obligations based on the KimCC jointly and severally liable and the loan certificate, which was determined that the dividends received through the voluntary auction procedure on the real estate owned by the debtor KimB are only part of the principal, not interest, and thereafter, that the KimB could no longer receive the debt as a result of his death.

살피건대, 갑 제8호증의 1 내지 3, 갑 제13 내지 18호증의 각 기재에 의하면, 원고는 2006. 9. 19. 채무자 김BB에게 25,000,000원을 이자율 연 36%(3일 이상 연체시 1% 가산금 부과), 이자지불일 매월 18일, 원금변제일 2006. 12. 19.로 정하여 대여한 사실, 원고는 김BB 소유의 부동산에 관하여 ○○지방법원 ●●지원 20◎◎타경◎◎◎◎호로 개시된 부동산 임의경매 사건에서 '원금 25,000,000원, 이자 29,128,767원'으로 하여 배당금 청구를 하여, 위 법원으로부터 2011. 3. 23. 배당금으로 24,545,476원을 수령한 사실, 원고는 2017. 12. 26. 연대채무자 김CC과 사이에, 김BB이 사망하여 채무금을 더 이상 독촉할 수 없고 김BB과 김CC 모두 재산이 없어 채무금을 받을 수 없음을 이유로 위 배당금으로 채권채무를 종결하기로 합의한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

According to the above facts, the above KRW 24,545,476, which the plaintiff received as dividends in a voluntary auction procedure, shall be deemed to fall under part of interest in the order of appropriation under Article 479 (1) of the Civil Act, unless there are special circumstances such as other agreements. There is no evidence to prove that there was any agreement between the plaintiff and KimB on the application of appropriation of the above dividends. Further, according to Article 48 (10-3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the time of receipt of business income for the interest and discount accrued from the financial insurance business is "the date of actual receipt." If the collection of principal claims becomes objectively impossible, the unpaid principal amount of claims is treated as bad debts in the corresponding year, and it is not deducted from interest income in the previous taxable year (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du9536, Sept. 24, 2009). The above agreement between the plaintiff and KimCC between the plaintiff after the occurrence of interest income in September 24, 2011>

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition imposed on the Plaintiff as interest is unfair, since the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 1,540,00,000, KRW 2,240,000, and KRW 7,403,50, which was received from △△ Credit Information Company, was part of the principal of the claim received under the debt collection contract between the Plaintiff and △△ Credit Information Company. However, the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 1,540,00, and KRW 2,400, and KRW 7,403,50 is a part of the principal of the claim received under the debt collection contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 19-1,

C. The plaintiff, among non-performing claims owned by the plaintiff, sold claims against HCC, DoD and GaE at the amount equivalent to 3% of its principal to the △△△ Loan Co., Ltd., and received 1,800,000 won for claims against HCC and DoD, and 300,000 won for its sale price, and thus, the disposition of this case that is imposed on HE with the above amount as interest is unfair. However, it is difficult to recognize the plaintiff's allegation only with the descriptions of 1,2, and 3 of Gap evidence No. 20 submitted by the court of appeal. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

D. On April 1, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) even though the Plaintiff loaned 600 million won to △△△△△△△ Co., Ltd., and thereafter paid taxes through a revised return on global income tax for the portion belonging to 2011, the Defendant’s imposition of the instant disposition by determining the amount of KRW 149,515,068, and KRW 96,234,586 as interest income; and (b) based on the purport of each of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of KRW 136,272,258, which was reported as total income income through the revised return on global income tax for the year 2011; and (c) as seen earlier, the date of receipt of interest and discount accrued from the finance and insurance business should be deemed as the date of income actually received; and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

E. The Plaintiff asserted that KRW 3,900,000 that the Plaintiff received from HongG in 2011 is the principal, and KRW 200,000,000 that was received from KimF in 2013 is the transportation expenses and expenses of Daegu in Daegu in 2013, and KRW 450,000 that was received from GJ in 2013, and KRW 300,000 that was received from GJ in 2011, and the Plaintiff filed a tax return, and KRW 90,000 that was received from HK in 2013, and KRW 150,000 that was received from KM in 2013, was the principal, and the interest income received from KN in 2013, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone does not constitute the interest income accrued to the account in the Plaintiff’s name, and the Plaintiff did not have any reason to assert it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.