The amount of this case deposited in the head of the Tong shall be the non-business profit.

In light of the fact that the instant money deposited in the Plaintiff’s passbook is insufficient to reverse the recognition on the ground that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to reverse the recognition, and thus, it constitutes a non-business profit.

Article 16 (Interest Income)

2016-Gu Partnership-63317 Revocation of the imposition of global income tax

AA

O Head of tax office

April 5, 2017

May 10, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing global income tax on the Plaintiff on May 19, 2014 is revoked by the Defendant’s disposition of imposing global income tax on the Plaintiff, ○○○, ○○○, ○○, and ○○○○○, and ○○○○.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Status of the parties

KK is the representative of the Joint Building Association of 21-65 (hereinafter referred to as the "Construction Association of this case").CC is the representative of the FFFFF (hereinafter referred to as the "FFF") of the Building Association, which is the object of the project of the Building Association of this case, and LL is the auditor of the FFF.

(b) Tax investigation and primary disposition;

After conducting a tax investigation with respect to the instant building association from May 20, 2013 to July 27, 2013, the Central Regional Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of taxation data on profits from non-business payments by deeming that “the Plaintiff lent funds to the instant building association through the FF in 2007 and received the payment of KRW 494,017,615,” and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of taxation data on the profits from non-business payments on May 19, 2014, based on the tax base of KRW 492,246,165, additional tax amount of KRW 129,059,0740, KRW 281,305, KRW 2301, KRW 2395, KRW 1305, KRW 205, KRW 23015, KRW 205, KRW 2381, KRW 205, KRW 2015, KRW 315,2015.

(c) Determination of reinvestigation and second disposition of imposition;

On October 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the first disposition. On November 2014, 2014, the Defendant rendered a reinvestigation on November 20, 2014. As a result, the Defendant, on April 3, 2015, sent to the Plaintiff the notice of the result of the assessment (hereinafter referred to as “instant notice”), which states that the amount of KRW 492,417,615 should be reduced to KRW 48,295,901, and the calculated tax amount shall be 281,305,239 won shall be reduced to KRW 278,639,747, and the amount of KRW 90,615 won shall be reduced to KRW 492,417,615 won under the premise, KRW 492,615,415 won, KRW 492,4158,4829,581, and the amount of the instant disposition of imposition and correction shall be reduced to KRW 1605,5060,5.

(d) Decision to dismiss a tax appeal;

On July 10, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for adjudication on July 10, 2015. However, on January 29, 2016, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision of dismissal on the ground that the Plaintiff’s notification of the result of disposal according to the decision of reexamination on the entry was received on April 7, 2015, and thus, the said request for adjudication was unlawful on the ground that the period for request

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 4-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff received a decision of rejection by filing a request for adjudication on July 10, 2015, from April 7, 2015, which was notified of the instant disposition, from April 7, 2015, and the period for filing a request for adjudication of 90 days elapsed. Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it fails to

B. Determination

Where a request for administrative appeal, which is the pre-trial procedure of an appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, is unlawful due to the lapse of the period, etc., administrative litigation shall be deemed unlawful as it fails to satisfy the requirements of the pre-trial. However, even if the pre-trial procedure is lawful and thus dismissed, the pre-trial procedure shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements

Article 56(2) and Article 68(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 14382, Dec. 20, 201; hereinafter the same) provides that an administrative litigation against a disposition under tax-related Acts cannot be filed without going through a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes and a decision thereon, and that request for adjudication must be filed within 90 days from the date (the date of receipt of the notice of disposition) on which the pertinent disposition is known. Here, the "date on which the pertinent disposition is known" should be calculated as of the date of receipt of the notice when the other party to the tax disposition requests for adjudication: Provided, That if the person to receive documents, such as a taxpayer of tax disposition, has explicitly or explicitly delegated the right to receive postal items or other documents to other person, and the plaintiff cannot be seen to have lawfully delivered the relevant documents to the other party upon receipt of the relevant documents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du1164, Jul. 4, 2000).

Therefore, the instant lawsuit was instituted through legitimate pre-trial proceedings, and is lawful. The Defendant’s defense on the principal safety is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

With respect to the amount of KRW 200,00,000 on October 30, 2007, which constitutes the interest income amount of the instant case, and KRW 350,000 on the check money on November 20, 2007, the Plaintiff did not possess the check money and the check money. Since the Plaintiff merely mediated the check money and the check discount on November 20, 2007, interest was not paid as a result of lending money, and it cannot be deemed that the specific taxation requirement was specified as non-business profits such as principal, interest rate, and due date. Thus, the instant disposition of taxation was unlawful since there was no taxation requirement.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to the Plaintiff’s statement Nos. 2, 3, 6, and 7 of this case’s interest income and the purport of the testimony and oral argument, the construction association’s tax investigation was conducted on the following facts: (a) even if the Plaintiff borrowed operating funds and paid interest from 2006 to 209, the construction association’s non-business profits did not withhold taxes; (b) the construction association’s confirmation during the above tax investigation process and the FFF’s review were conducted on May 10, 2005 to June 5, 2008; (c) the Plaintiff’s statement that the above construction association borrowed 49,395,359 won from the Plaintiff and paid 00 won interest income and paid 00 won to the Plaintiff for the above construction and settlement account; and (d) the Plaintiff’s statement that “this case’s interest income was issued in the name of 00,621,567 won in addition to the principal.”

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.