early 2011west 2998 ( December 19, 2011)

Whether the profit from the sale of loan claims falls under the non-business profit

Even if Article 4(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Education Tax Act provides "other operating income and non-operating income" as taxable items, and it does not include profits actually, but only those included in the account book, and it does not include profits from the sale of loan credit, and it is the internal income excluded from the tax base of the education tax.

2012Guhap9482 Revocation of Disposition of Refusal to Correction Education Tax

Korea AA Bank, Inc.

The director of the tax office

June 19, 2012

July 6, 2012

1. The Defendant’s refusal of the Defendant’s request for reduction or correction of KRW 000 shall be revoked for the fourth to fourth education tax in 2007 against the Plaintiff on May 17, 201.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as a financial institution under Article 3 of the Banking Act, reported and paid the total amount of education tax (hereinafter “the education tax of this case”) to the Defendant including the income accrued from the sale of loan claims from the fourth to the fourth to the fourth in 2009 (hereinafter “gains from the sale of loan claims”) in the education tax base. The Plaintiff reported and paid the total amount of education tax (hereinafter “the education tax of this case”) to the Defendant including the income accrued from the sale of loan claims from the fourth in 2007 to the fourth in 2009. The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the refund of the education tax of this case on February 28, 201 by deeming that the income from the sale of loan claims of this case is not included in the education tax base:

(C) On May 17, 2011, the Defendant rendered a disposition of refusal of the Plaintiff’s claim for correction (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the grounds that the proceeds from the sale of the instant loan fall under the revenue amount of the financial and insurance business entity, which serves as the education tax base, and that the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be accepted. On August 11, 2011, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal, but the said request was dismissed on December 19, 201.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

"The sales profit of the loan in this case is not a real and actual income but a bad debt allowance refunded and an economic substance. Therefore, the sales profit of this case is an internal profit under Article 4 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Education Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22046, Feb. 18, 2010; Presidential Decree No. hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Education Tax Act")." (b) It should be excluded from education tax

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Article 5 (1) 1 of the former Education Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10407, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "former Education Tax Act") provides that "the revenue amount of financial and insurance business entities" shall be the education tax base, and Article 5 (3) provides that "the revenue amount of financial and insurance business entities shall be the revenue amount of financial and insurance business entities that are the tax base of education tax, and the revenue amount of financial and insurance business entities such as interest dividends, fees, and fees, and (2) the sales revenue of securities such as profits and redemption profits, and (3) other amount prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as insurance premium, shall be included in the Enforcement Decree without considering the principle of prohibition on comprehensive delegation of tax laws, and it shall be deemed that the above amount is more than the first one prescribed in the above Act, and the amount determined by the Presidential Decree in excess of the former Education Tax Act shall not be included in the book value of the loan claims so that the former sales revenue amount is more than the one of the loan claims.

3) In addition, Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Education Tax Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 22046 on February 18, 2010 provides for "the amount equivalent to bad debts and bad debts and bad debts and bad debts of the pertinent claim out of the sales profits or redemption profits of the claim" as one of the following: (a) as before the amendment, Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Education Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22046) provides for "l operating income and other operating income and non-operating income included in the education tax base as they are, and is excluded from the previous education tax base." (b) The amended Enforcement Decree of the Education Tax Act provides for "l inside income and bad debts and bad debts of the pertinent claim as one of the above." (c) According to the revised Enforcement Decree of the Education Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22046), the sales profits of the instant loan corresponding to the bad debts allowance and are not included in the education tax base, and (d) this is reasonable interpretation of Article 5(3) of the former Education Tax Act.

4) Therefore, the instant disposition was unlawful on the premise that the sales profit of the instant loan claims belongs to the revenue amount serving as the education tax base.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.