Interest and delay damages in excess of the limited interest rate specified in the Interest Limitation Act shall be other income.

Interest and delay damages in excess of the interest rate prescribed in the Interest Limitation Act shall be the amount received at the time of receiving as other income the penalty or damages for breach or cancellation of the contract, unless the debtor pays it at will, since the contract itself is null and void.

Article 16 of the Income Tax Act

Article 21 of the Income Tax Act

1. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of global income tax of KRW 633,01,086 against the Plaintiff on December 9, 2003, exceeding KRW 323,486,442, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 80% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 1,051,93,310 on December 9, 2003 and global income tax of KRW 633,01,086 on December 9, 200 and the global income tax of KRW 633,01,086 on the part of the year 199 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts and particulars of taxation disposition;

(a) Creation and acquisition of the right to collateral security of 6 billion won with a maximum debt amount;

(1) Lease of KRW 3.2 billion and creation of the right to collateral security of KRW 6 billion with the maximum debt amount

The plaintiff and ○○○○○, ○○○, and ○○○○, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “four persons, including the plaintiff”) shall jointly lease KRW 3.2 billion to ○○○○ and ○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “debtors”) on January 16, 1993, and shall receive a refund of KRW 5.5 billion on July 16, 1993. If one of the parties violates the agreement, the other party may rescind the agreement, and the damages for delay after the cancellation shall be calculated at the rate of 5.5% per month. On January 26, 1993, the part of the above 198-66-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-777-77-77-777-77-777--7777---777777 (hereinafter referred to be referred to be).

(2) Additional maximum debt amount of 6 billion won

In addition to the right to collateral security, on January 28, 1994, the Plaintiff additionally received 73/2 of the 202 shares (A: 169, 170, 172, 177, 180, 335-352) of the 2,824.47 square meters of the 2,824.47 square meters of the 2,000 square meters (hereinafter “the 2,000 square meters of the 169, 170, 172, 177, 180, 335-352) of the 1,000 square meters of the 2,000 square meters of the 2,000 square meters of the 2,000 square meters of the 2,000 square meters of the 2,000 square meters of the 2,000 square meters of the 2,000 square meters of the 2,000.

(3) Acceptance of the refund claim

On May 7, 1996, the Plaintiff acquired a claim for the refund of a loan granted with a maximum debt amount of 6 billion won against the obligor from the private ○○○, ○○○○, and ○○○○○○, the Plaintiff completed the supplementary registration prior to the same day (Additional registration No. 4 of the former priority order No. 4 / 52,53 of the former priority order No. 4).

(b) Transfer of the maximum debt amount 1.5 billion won;

(1) Meanwhile, while lending 706,000,000 won to ○○○ enterprise, ○○ enterprise filed a lawsuit claiming damages against ○○ enterprise by Seoul District Court 90Gahap31430, and rendered a favorable judgment. On May 22, 1993, in order to secure the above claim, 73/20 of the ○○ enterprise’s shares (A: 169,170, 172, 177, 180, 335-352) among the instant land’s buildings and 150,00 won of the maximum debt amount (hereinafter “mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-backed 307-313,315) and Kim○-○’s share (hereinafter “1.50,000 won”).

(2) After the dispute between the ○○ enterprise and the ○ enterprise on November 10, 1998 and the lawsuit of objection to the execution of the auction and the claim, ○○ enterprise received the agreed amount from the Plaintiff for the payment of the agreed amount, and 1.5 billion won in the name of the Plaintiff designated by the ○○ enterprise in the name of the ○○○○, Kim○, and Park ○○ (hereinafter referred to as “three persons, such as ○○○, Kim○, and Lee Ho-ho”) in the form of transferring the secured claim, 1.5 billion won in the name of the Plaintiff, which is the trustee of the ○○ enterprise designated by the ○○ enterprise, and 1.5 billion won in the future of 3 persons, such as this ○○, etc., and completed

Details of collateral security regarding the instant real estate

When arranging the details of the right to collateral security of 4 persons, such as Kim○-○, Plaintiff, etc. established on the real estate of this case and the building of this case, the following list is listed.

this title:

The ground floor of this case

Seoul ○○-gu

○○ 19-1

Large 4,191 square meters

This case

Ground

Buildings

On January 26, 1993, the maximum debt amount of 6 billion won, the debtor, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security: The establishment of the right to collateral security (former order number : 4) composed of four persons such as the plaintiff, etc., and the joint collateral: Civil ○○, ○○, and ○○ among four persons such as the plaintiff, etc., on the ground of this case, the building of this case, the plaintiff, etc., transferred the secured debt to the plaintiff, and the additional registration course before May

On May 22, 1993, 1993, 73/202 of shares (the former priority number: 169, 170, 172, 177, 180, 335-352) and shares of Kim○ (the former priority number: 307-313, 315) of 73/20 (the former priority number: 169, 170, 172, 177, 180, 335-352) of ○○○, the debtor: ○○, the debtor: the creation of the right to collateral security (the former priority number No. 47), the right to collateral security (the former order number No. 47), the right to collateral security held by the plaintiff on November 1

(2) An additional registration

In addition to the right to collateral security established on January 28, 1994, 73/200 of the ○○ enterprise's 73/202 shares (the order of priority: 169, 170, 172, 177, 180, 335-352) of the ○○ enterprise's 73 percent (the order of priority: 169, 170, 177, 180, 35-352) in addition to the right to collateral security established on January 28, 1994, the maximum debt amount shall be 6 billion won, the debtor: the debtor, the person holding the right to collateral security, the right to collateral security, and the right to collateral security, among four persons including the plaintiff,

In addition to the right to collateral security established on April 8, 1994, 6 billion won on the instant land, the share (the order number: 304-313, 315, 316) in Kim○ among the instant Subdivision buildings, and the share in ○○ Tourism (the order number: 201-215, 261, 267-270, 274, 289-297) in relation to the share in ○○ Tourism (the order number: 201-215, 267-270, 274, 289-297), 6 billion won with a maximum debt amount; additional right to collateral security (the former order number No. 53), four ○○, ○○ and Lee○, including the Plaintiff, transferred the secured debt to the Plaintiff, and have been additionally registered on May 7, 1996.

D. Auction of the instant real estate, etc. and receipt of dividends

(1) After this, Kim○-○’s shares (the former order number: 307-313,315) of the instant land-based building on which the instant additional collateral mortgage was established and ○○ Tourism’s shares (the order number: 261, 268, 270, 293) were awarded due to the auction procedure of real estate rental at ○○ District Court 98 another 14710 around 14710. The Plaintiff submitted a claim statement based on the secured claim of the 1.5 billion mortgage that was transferred from Kim○-○ in the above auction procedure and received dividends of KRW 762,296,494 in three names, such as this Chapter.

(2) In addition, ○○ enterprise’s share (the former order 335-352), for which the instant additional collateral security was created, was awarded a successful bid for the auction of real estate at around 98 another court around 10048 at around the same court. Since the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 762,296,494 from the auction procedure at around 98ta-14710, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 762,296,494, excluding the already paid dividends of KRW 762,296,494, 737,703,50,060,000, out of the open date of distribution on November 4, 1999, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 2,61,093,153,000,000,000, based on the claim secured by the right to collateral security at least 6 billion.

(3) The shares of ○○ Tourism (the former order number: 274,289) out of the instant branch of a building on which the instant additional collateral security was established was awarded by the ○○ District Court 2001 another 7330, and the auction of real estate was successful. On August 23, 2001, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 51,724,245 with the secured claim of 6 billion from the open date of distribution.

(5) Meanwhile, the real estate of this case, on which the right to collateral security was established, was awarded a successful bid for the auction of real estate by ○○ District Court around 96 other. On November 22, 2002, the Plaintiff received 6 billion won, which is the maximum debt amount, from the date of distribution opened on November 22, 2002. However, the Plaintiff filed an objection against 1.3 billion won by ○○○ District Court 2002Da76870, ○○○○○ District Court 2002Gada7680, 52888, and 1.3 billion won in the lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution by ○○○○○○○○ District Court 2003da5288, 1.3 billion won in the lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution, but the Plaintiff was fully withdrawn from the appellate court 3.8 billion won in the lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution by ○○○○○.

(6) When arranging dividends received by the Plaintiff, it is listed in the following table:

Classification

98 Other Doz. 14710

98 Other 10048

98 Maz. 25130

201 Other 7330

96Timcis 199

Total

Distribution Date

May 6, 199

November 4, 1999

December 6, 199

August 23, 2001

November 22, 2002

Three persons, such as heading, etc.

762,296,494

1,500,000,000

2,262,296,494

2,611,093,153

120,771,814

51,724,245

6,000,000,000

Receiving KRW 4.77 billion, excluding KRW 1.3 billion, excluding KRW 1.3 billion, but 370 million after the agreement was reached.

E. Receipt of KRW 300 million from ○ Industry Development Co., Ltd.

(1) On June 1997, the Plaintiff: (a) determined ○○ Housing Association and Hu○○○○○, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “the borrower”) as 6,358 parcels of land totaling of 16 ○○○○○○○○○○, 216-1, 2496, and as 6,358 square meters of interest, and leased KRW 2.5 billion as 1.7% of interest per month; and (b) on December 31, 1997, paid KRW 1 billion as business profit dividends; and (c) agreed that the borrower shall bear tax and public charges on interest income tax and business dividends.

(2) After October 28, 1999, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming an agreed amount of KRW 868,777,00,00 as well as a business dividend of KRW 1 billion against the borrower. However, as the Plaintiff did not receive interest income tax and resident tax, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming an agreed amount of KRW 82,261,880,00, including interest income tax of KRW 747,510,80,000 as ○ District Court 2000,67611 and resident tax of KRW 74,751,080, as ○○ District Court 202,261,880.

(3) On April 3, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the borrower and ○ Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Industrial Development”) on the instant case from ○○ Housing Association, etc. and ○ Industrial Development to KRW 300 million (in relation to the payment of KRW 300 million, taxes and other public charges imposed only twice in relation to the payment of KRW 300 million are responsible for the development of ○ Industry, and the Plaintiff is responsible for the said ○ Industrial Development, and taxes and public charges accrued more than twice thereafter are liable to the Plaintiff). On the same day, the Plaintiff received KRW 300 million from ○ Industrial Development on the same day.

F. The Plaintiff’s return on global income tax and gift tax in 2002 uf09e payment and the Defendant’s disposition of imposition

(1) Subsequent to the auction procedure of 14710, May 6, 1999, the Plaintiff deemed 762,296,494 won, which was distributed in three names, including Lee○, etc., as interest income accrued from the secured claim of the right to collateral security, and included it in interest income accrued in 2002. On December 23, 1993, the Plaintiff additionally lent 400 million won to Kim○. Furthermore, as the obligor did not pay interest of 3.2 billion won, the obligor paid 1.1 billion won interest on behalf of the obligor from August 1993 to June 1995, and thus, the obligor did not claim for reimbursement of 1.1 billion won, 4.1 billion won, 1.1 billion won, 299 billion won, 1.4 billion won, 2.5 billion won, 1.4 billion won, 1.5 billion won, 295 billion won, 29.75 billion won, 29.75 billion won, 75 billion won, 29.4.75 billion won, excluding the remainder of the remainder.

Principal

Receipt of Dividends

Interest income

Exclusion Period of Imposition and Interest Income

Interest income amount reported

Classification

Amount

Year

Amount

3,549,756,452

2.3 billion won

Original Principal

3.2 billion won

199

3,494,161,461

Additional Loans

40 million won

201

51,724,245

Interest payment amount

110 million won

202

4,703,870,746

Total

4.7 billion won

8,249,756,452

(2) In addition, on May 31, 2003, the Plaintiff determined that the agreed amount of KRW 300 million received from the development of ○ Industry was subject to gift tax, and calculated the tax base on the basis thereof, and paid uf09e for gift tax return.

(3) However, the director of ○○○○○○○○ has been informed of the Plaintiff’s evasion of interest income of KRW 200 billion + KRW 200 billion + KRW 300 billion + KRW 400 billion additionally loaned to Kim○○○○ on behalf of the Defendant on December 23, 1993; KRW 1.1 billion was not reliable; ② KRW 762,296,494, which the Plaintiff reported as dividends of KRW 6 billion; KRW 2000,000 + KRW 309,000,000; KRW 2096,000,000 KRW 296,000,000; ② KRW 3606,000,000,00 KRW 296,000,000,000, KRW 3096,000,000,000,00 KRW 2964,00,000.

(4) On December 9, 2003, the Defendant calculated the amount of interest income belonging to the Plaintiff in 1999 KRW 4,432,296,49 as global income tax for the year 1999 and notified uf09e by calculating the amount of 1,051,93,310 as global income tax for the year 1999. On the other hand, on the ground that the amount of interest income belonging to the year 2002 increased in KRW 2,333,832,760, the amount of interest income belonging to the Plaintiff was calculated as global income tax for the year 2002, and notified uf09, uf09, uf09.

(g) Decision on partial cancellation by the National Tax Tribunal and reduction of the defendant;

(1) On February 27, 2004, the Plaintiff appealed with the National Tax Tribunal for a trial on February 1, 2004, and received 6 billion won from the National Tax Tribunal on December 1, 2005, due to the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution and return of unjust enrichment by another person among the 6 billion won secured by the secured claim by the mortgagee-mortgage 6 billion which was distributed by the National Tax Tribunal, was not received KRW 1.3 billion in the course of the lawsuit, and was finally confirmed not to have received KRW 930 million in the course of the lawsuit, the Defendant received a partial decision of acceptance that the tax base and tax amount should be corrected by excluding KRW 930 million in the total amount of the global income tax for which the year belongs.

(2) Accordingly, on January 9, 2006, the defendant issued a disposition to reduce the amount of 419,697,635 won among the global income tax for the year 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant dispositions in which the disposition of imposition of KRW 1,051,93,310 among the global income tax for the year 1999 and the disposition of imposition of KRW 1,052,708,721, which remains as a result of the defendant's partial reduction of the global income tax for the year 2002 (=1,011,086 won (=1,052,708,708,721 won-419,697,635)];

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 and 3 evidence, Gap 6-1 through 5, Gap 7-1, 2, 3, Gap 8 through 12, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the taxation disposition is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that each taxation disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) Violation of imposition of global income tax for 2002

(A) Termination of the right to impose interest income based on the claim secured by the right to collateral security of 6 billion won

As delineated below, since 762,296,494 won was not different from the dividend paid with the secured claim of 6 billion won by the right to collateral security and the secured claim of the instant additional collateral security, all of the amounts paid to the Plaintiff 9,545,835,706 won (=762,296,494 won + 2,61,093,153 + 120,714 won + 51,724,245 + 6,000,000 won + interest income of 930,000,000 won was determined to have not been reverted to the Plaintiff in the course of the lawsuit of raising an objection to the distribution, etc., the period for exclusion of interest income of 39,715,835,706 won was 70,000 won after the lapse of the period for exclusion of interest income of 320,000,000 won from the above amount to 371,5375,7195,09,0000,00.7.35.7

(B) Violation in calculating the interest income amount accrued in 2002

Even if it is possible to impose tax on the interest income belonging to the year 2002, the amount of such interest income was calculated erroneously for the following reasons.

① At the auction procedure No. 14710, May 6, 1999, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 762,296,494 in three names, including Lee○, etc., and thus, at the auction procedure conducted under the above 98 other around 10048, only KRW 737,706,506 shall be distributed, excluding KRW 762,296,494, which was already paid dividends, and the remainder shall be paid out of KRW 762,296,506,50,000, the maximum debt amount of KRW 1.577,703,50,000, which is the next priority, was paid due to the mistake of the auction court. However, the remainder of KRW 1.5 billion, 762,296,494, excluding KRW 762,506,00,00 in interest income, should be apportioned to the secured debt of the next priority.

② On December 23, 1993, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 400 million to Kim○○, and additionally set the maximum debt amount of KRW 6 billion on the instant land in addition to the 6 billion mortgage established on the instant land, which was set up on December 23, 1993, and thus, the said 400 million loan repayment claim is also included in the principal among the secured debt of KRW 6 billion, and accordingly, should be naturally deducted as the principal when calculating interest income accrued in 2002.

③ On January 16, 1993, the Plaintiff, along with ○○○, ○○, and ○○○, etc., lent KRW 3.2 billion to the obligor. In the event that the obligor did not repay the principal and interest by the agreed date, the Plaintiff is responsible for the Plaintiff, and the obligor agreed to pay 2.1 billion interest per month to ○○, ○○, and ○○○, and ○○, respectively. Since the obligor paid the interest of KRW 1.1 billion on behalf of the obligor from August 1993 to June 1995 on behalf of the obligor, the Plaintiff paid the obligor interest of KRW 1.1 billion amount to the obligor. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the reimbursement of KRW 1.1 billion should be included in the principal of the claim secured by the right to collateral security, and thus, it should be naturally deducted as principal at the time of calculating interest income accrued in the year 2002.

(C) The imposition of global income tax on KRW 300 million received from the development of the ○ industry is illegal to include the amount of 300 million won, which the Plaintiff received from the development of the ○ industry, in accordance with the agreement that the borrower shall pay the tax to be paid under the tax law, and thus, it is unlawful to impose the tax by including the amount of such agreement in the income subject to global income tax without disclosing what income the amount of such agreement

(2) Violation of imposition of global income tax on 199

(A) As alleged earlier, the taxable year of KRW 762,296,494 is the time when the secured debt of KRW 6 billion was reverted, and as such, the above 762,296,494 won was paid out of the secured debt of KRW 6 billion in 2002 and can not be deemed as the interest income accrued in 2002 and cannot be deemed as the interest income accrued in 199.

(B) In addition, with respect to the secured claim of the 1.5 billion mortgage that the Plaintiff acquired, the ○○ enterprise agreed to pay 1.2 billion won to Kim○○ and to terminate all disputes, and only stated that the agreement is to pay 8.3 billion won to Kim○○ upon the strong request of Kim○○ for tax reduction, and actually agreed to pay 1.2 billion won. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid 1.2 billion won to Kim○ through the ○○○○ through the ○○ enterprise, and received 1.2 billion won from the acquisition of the secured claim of the 1.5 billion won mortgage in the name of 3 persons, such as this ○○○. Therefore, the principal of the secured claim of the 1.5 billion won mortgage is 1.2 billion won.

(C) Therefore, in total of KRW 2,262,296,49, when the Defendant excluded interest income belonging to the year 2002 from the total of KRW 1,432,296,49 as interest income belonging to the year 1999, KRW 762,296,49, and KRW 1.2 billion from the principal of the secured claim of the right to collateral security of KRW 1.5 billion, the interest income belonging to the year 1999 (=2,262,296,494-762,496,494-1.200,000 interest income belonging to the year 199 shall be imposed only on the above interest income belonging to the year 199. Thus, the imposition of global income tax belonging to the year 199 is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

○ Income Tax Act

Article 16 (Interest Income)

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

12. Profits accruing from a non-business loan;

(3) Matters necessary for the scope of interest income under the provisions of each subparagraph of paragraph (1) and interest income amount under paragraph (2) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 21 (Other Incomes)

(1) Other income: u609e uf09e real estate rental income uf09e real estate rental income uf09e business income uf09e employment income uf09e uf09e uf09e temporary property income uf09e annuity income uf09e uf09e uf09e income and forestry income,

10. Overdue charge or indemnities caused by a breach or cancellation of a contract;

former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994)

Article 17 (Interest Income)

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

11. Profits accruing from a non-business loan.

Article 25 (Other Incomes)

(1) Other income: uf09e, uf09e, uf09e real estate income uf09e, uf09e real estate income, uf09e uf09e uf09e uf09e uf09e uf09e income, and

9. Overdue charge or indemnities caused by a breach or cancellation of a contract;

○ Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax

Article 45 (Receipt Date of Interest Income) The receipt date of the total amount of interest income shall be as follows:

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

The date of payment of interest pursuant to the agreement: Provided, That in cases where no agreement is made on the date of payment of interest or interest is paid before the date of payment of interest pursuant to the agreement, or where interest was received from the calculation of gross income pursuant to Article 51 (7), it shall be the

Article 50 (Receipt Date of Temporary Property Income)

(1) The receipt date of the total amount of other incomes shall be the receipt date of such other incomes.

Enforcement Decree of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18173 of Dec. 30, 2003)

Article 87 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses in Other Income, etc.) With respect to other income or temporary property income falling under any of the following subparagraphs, the amount equivalent to 75/100 (80/100, in the case of subparagraphs 3 and 4) of the amount received by the resident shall be considered as necessary expenses:

5. Compensation for delay in moving into the house, from among the penalty and indemnity under Article 21 (1) 10 of the Act.

Enforcement Decree of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994)

Article 57 (Receipt Date of Total Amount of Income)

(1) The receipt date of the total amount of interest income shall be as follows:

1. Interest and the discounted amount of the bearer public bonds or debentures;

2. Interests on time deposits:

(A) Interest payment date under the agreement.

Provided, That the interest for the period after the expiration of the contract period shall be paid on the date of receipt.

(b) As to the interest under a special contract to be transferred to the original, the transferring date to the original by such special contract.

(C) For interest paid upon cancellation, the date of cancellation.

3. Interests on ordinary deposits:

The date on which payment is made pursuant to the agreement or the original is transferred to the original.

4. Interest on the notification deposit. The date of withdrawal.

5. Proceeds of trust; and

The expiration date of the profit calculation period, the termination date of the trust, or the redemption date of securities investment trust;

6. Interest and the discounted amount of the non-bearer public bonds or debentures;

The starting date of interest payment under the agreement.

7. Interest and discount amount of bonds uf09e Bills or other securities;

Redemption date under the agreement: Provided, That when making a redemption before the due date, it shall be the repayment date.

8. Profit margins on a savings insurance;

(9) The receipt date of the total amount of other incomes shall be the receipt date of the payment.

○ Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 26-2 (Period for Excluding Assessment of National Tax)

(1) No national tax may be levied after the period provided for in the following subparagraphs expires: Provided, That if the mutual agreement procedures are in progress under the provisions of a treaty concluded to prevent double taxation (hereinafter referred to as "tax treaty"), Article 25 of the Adjustment of National Taxes Act shall apply:

1. In case where a taxpayer evades national taxes, or obtains a refund uf09e deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful means, ten years from the day on which the national taxes concerned may be levied;

2. Seven years from the date on which the national tax may be assessed, if a taxpayer fails to file a return of tax base within the legal deadline for filing the return;

3. If it does not fall under subparagraphs 1 and 2 above, for a period of five years from the day on which the national tax is assessable; and

C. Determination

(1) Whether the imposition of global income tax for the year 2002 is unlawful

(A) Whether the right to impose interest income based on the secured claim of the right to collateral security has expired

① In order to realize income in interest income, it does not necessarily require that the interest has been paid in reality, and it is sufficient to determine uf09 (e.g., maturity uf09) due to sufficient possibility of claim for interest at the date of payment of interest. Therefore, in a case where a person acquired a security exceeding the principal and interest and lent money, barring any special circumstance, the possibility of claim for interest accrued along with the arrival of the date of payment of interest and the possibility of claim for interest arising therefrom is considerably high from the objective view of the possibility of income realization. Therefore, the tax authority may impose tax by deeming the income

However, even if interest and delay damages in excess of the interest rate prescribed in the Interest Limitation Act are null and void, and the agreed due date has arrived, the interest and delay damages cannot be deemed as constituting income subject to taxation unless the debtor has paid it voluntarily (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu598, Nov. 10, 1987).

In addition, damages for delay arising from the delay of payment of obligation is not damages to the payment itself, which is the content of the original contract, and it is not different from the monetary obligation. Thus, damages for delay of agreement arising from the delay of payment of money obligation constitutes other income under Article 25 (1) 9 of the former Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4803, Dec. 22, 1994) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu7406, Mar. 28, 1997; 2004Du3984, Jan. 12, 2006).

② 이 사건에서, 원고 등 4인은 1993. 1. 16. 채무자들에게 32억 원을 대여하고 1993. 7. 16. 55억 원을 반환받기로 함으로써 6개월간의 이자를 23억 원으로 약정하여 그 이율이 연 575%에 달하고, 약정위반에 따른 지연손해금의 비율도 월 5%로 약정함으로써 이율이나 지연손해금의 비율이 구 이자제한법에서 정한 제한이율인 연 25%의 비율을 모두 초과하고 있으므로, 채무자들이 임의로 변제기인 1993. 7. 16. 까지 구 이자제한법에서 정한 제한이율인 연 25%의 비율로 계산한 398,904,109원(=32억 원х25%х182일/365일)만 이자지급의 약정일인 1993. 7. 16. 이자소득으로 수입하였다고 볼 수 있고, 이를 초과하여 배당받은 금원 중 원금을 제외한 나머지 금원은 모두 변제기 이후에 발생한 것으로서 구 이자제한법의 제한이율의 범위 내에서 지연손해금으로 충당되어 기타소득에 해당한다 할 것이다.

③ Therefore, the Plaintiff’s interest income tax imposed upon the Plaintiff was extinguished upon the lapse of the five-year exclusion period for imposition of global income tax due to the lapse of the five-year exclusion period for imposition of 398,904,109,09,000 won from the dividends paid to the Plaintiff. However, the remainder of the amount (excluding the principal) equivalent to other income belongs to the total income of the year in which the payment was made. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no interest income to be imposed after the lapse of the exclusion period for imposition of five-year exclusion period for imposition of global income tax from the dividends paid to the Plaintiff in 6 billion won, 398,904, 2001, and 2002, other than the interest income of KRW 398,904,109,000,000,000,000,0000,000.

(B) Whether the calculation of interest income amount in 2002 is unlawful or not

(1) Whether source of KRW 762,296,494 is interest income attributed to year 2002

As seen below, as to the illegality of imposition of global income tax accrued in November 4, 1999, 762,296,494 won out of 1.5 billion won distributed on November 4, 1999 should be considered as interest or delay damages on the secured debt of 6 billion won and shall not be considered as the principal and interest on the secured debt of 1.5 billion won. However, as seen below, 762,296,494 won out of 6 billion won as one of the secured claims of 1.5 billion won, 3.2 billion won as interest or delay damages shall be deemed as 3.2 billion won as 3.2 billion won as 3.2 billion won as 3.2 billion won as 398,904,109,000 won as 2.5 billion won as 3936.3 billion won as 19.3 billion won as 193.6 billion won as 193 billion won as interest or delay damages.

In addition, even if the Plaintiff appropriated KRW 762,296,494, out of KRW 1.5 billion distributed on November 4, 1999, for interest or delay damages on the secured claim of the right to collateral 6 billion, the Plaintiff constitutes interest income or other income accruing from the secured claim of the right to collateral 1.5 billion won on May 6, 1999, with the amount of KRW 762,296,494 and KRW 737,703,506 out of the amount of KRW 1.5 billion on November 1, 1999, and all principal and interest on the secured claim of the right to collateral 1.5 billion during the year 1.5 billion on November 4, 1999, and thus, it constitutes interest income or other income accrued in 199.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion that KRW 762,296,494, as interest income, belongs to the taxable period of 2002 is no longer reasonable.

(2) Whether a loan claim amounting to KRW 400 million against Kim ○-○ exists (whether a loan claim amounting to KRW 400 million may be excluded as principal in calculating interest income)

In full view of the statement of evidence No. 3 and the purport of the entire argument in the testimony of Kim ○○, the plaintiff could receive damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum, which is the statutory interest rate, if there is no agreement for the delay of payment of money loan, and if there is no interest rate for the interest rate for the interest income accrued in December 23, 1993, lend 400 million won to Kim ○○, and the fact that the additional mortgage of this case was created on the instant branch of the instant branch of the instant branch of the instant branch of the building under its security title. Thus, the debtor's additional loans to Kim ○ shall be included in the secured claim of the 6 billion mortgage established in order to secure all debts that the debtor would incur in uf09e as of uf09.

③ Whether the interest 1.1 billion won, which is claimed to have been paid on behalf of the debtor to ○○○, ○○, and ○○○○, can be deducted from the total amount of income by including it in the principal.

As alleged by the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff paid the interest of KRW 1.1 billion on behalf of all the obligors according to the internal agreement with four persons, including the Plaintiff, who agreed to be liable for and pay the interest of KRW 3.2 billion per month at the time of lending to the obligor, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the KRW 1.1 billion, which is alleged by the Plaintiff, is merely a substitute payment of the interest or damages for delay incurred from the principal amount of KRW 3.2 billion, and is not a substitute repayment of the principal amount which is the basis for the interest or damages for delay, and as long as the Plaintiff received a dividend of the interest or damages for delay incurred from the principal amount of KRW 3.2 billion and KRW 400 million, such interest or damages for delay, shall not be deducted from the gross amount of income. Accordingly,

(C) Whether KRW 300 million received from ○ industry development is subject to global income tax

Although the borrower agreed to pay the interest income tax corresponding to the interest income tax and actually paid the interest income tax to the borrower in order to facilitate the housing project, the Plaintiff and the borrower agreed to pay the interest income tax in consideration of the borrower's burden of interest income tax, etc. at the time of the lease. Thus, this constitutes interest income as a consideration for a monetary loan, not a gratuitous transfer of property, and thus, it constitutes interest income. Therefore, the Plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(D) Sub-determination

Since the Plaintiff’s 6 billion won as well as 3.60 billion won (=3.2 billion won + 400 million won), the principal and interest and damages for delay that have been paid on the basis of the principal of 9,545,885,706 won (=762,296,494 won + 2,611,093,153 won + 120,771,814 won + 51,724,245 won + 6,000,000,000 won + 762,296,494 won and 2,61,093,153 won and 120,71,771,814, 8140, 2939, 294, 209, 309, 196, 294, 209, 309, 309, 194, 2947, 194

Therefore, it can be viewed as taxable object of global income tax for the year 2002 as being subject to global income tax. The amount of 6 billion won distributed on November 22, 2002, which is 1.67 billion won, excluding the amount of 3.4 billion won in principal and the amount of 93 billion won in late 2000,000 won, which is determined not to be reverted to the plaintiff as a result of an objection to the distribution of 3.4 billion won in the amount of 6 billion won distributed on November 22, 2002, and the remainder of 1.67 billion won in late 2002, which is the delay damages. Accordingly, the global income amount subject to global income tax for the year 2002, which is subject to global income tax, shall be KRW 1.97 billion in total, 300 million in interest income received from ○ industrial development, and KRW 1.67 billion in other incomes, as indicated below, shall be calculated as follows.

Global income amount;

Amount of legitimate interest and other income

1,970,000,000

Interest income amount already reported;

1,249,756,452 won

Amount of increase or decrease

720,243,548 won

Tax Base

720,243,548 won

Tax Rate

36%

calculated tax amount

259,287,677 won

Additional Tax

Impossibility of Report

50,041,658 won

Good Faith in Payment

14,157,107 won

Total

64,198,765 won

Total Amount of Tax

323,486,442 won

(2) Whether the imposition of global income tax on 199 was unlawful

(A) Facts of recognition

① On June 9, 1992, 1992, ○○○○○○○○○ Company lent KRW 706,000,000 to ○○○○○ Company, and subsequently filed a lawsuit claiming damages (e.g., damages) against ○○○○○ Company by the District Court 90 Gohap31430, and was sentenced to a favorable judgment to pay the amount calculated by 25% per annum from April 24, 1990 to the day of full payment.

② In order to secure the above claim on May 22, 1993, Kim○-○ established a right to collateral security of 73/200 of shares (number A: 169, 170, 172, 177, 180, 335-352) and shares of Kim○-○ (number A: 307-313, 315), among the buildings of this case, a right to collateral security of 73/20 of the company of ○-○, among the buildings of this case, was established on May 2, 1993, but the right to collateral security of 1.5 billion won was not established on November 11, 1994 for an auction of real estate at the above court around 94,3954.

③ For the purpose of preventing the voluntary auction of Kim○, the ○○ Company deposited KRW 150,00,000 in the above court on October 19, 1994 after filing an application for the suspension of compulsory execution with the above court as 94Kao5246, and deposited KRW 150,00,000 in the above court as 13413 in the above court on the name of deposit money. On December 20, 1994, ○○ Company again filed an application for the provisional suspension of real estate auction procedure under 94Kao6326, and deposited KRW 150,000 in the above court as 14345 in the above court on the pretext of deposit money. However, Kim○-○ applied for the collection order on the 300,000,000 won in Seoul District Court Decision 90Da31430, 1670, the above collection order on the 300,000,00 won.

④ 그 후 ○○기업(당시 대표이사 박○○)은 ○○민사지방법원 90가합31430호 판결의 집행력을 저지하기 위하여 김○○를 상대로 ○○지방법원 98가합18358호로 청구이의의 소를 제기하여 다투다가 1998. 11. 10. 김○○와 사이에 ㉠ ○○기업은 위 청구이의 사건을 취하하고, ㉡ 김○○는 ○○지방법원 94타경39544 부동산임의경매신청 사건을 취하하며, ㉢ 김○○는 ○○기업의 건물에 대하여 설정한 15억 근저당권과 그 피담보채권을 ○○기업이 지정하는 사람 앞으로 명의변경을 하고, ㉣ 합의금액은 최초 원금인 8억 3,000만 원으로 하며, ㉤ 합의금 지급은 ○○기업이 1993. 4. 21. 김○○에게 현금으로 지급한 1억 3,000만 원과 김○○가 위 추심명령에 기하여 추심한 3억 원을 제외한 나머지 4억 원을 1998. 11. 10. 김○○에게 지급한다는 내용의 합의서를 작성하였다.

⑤ On the other hand, on November 9, 1998, the ○○○○, etc., designated by the Plaintiff as collateral, issued a promissory note with KRW 1.5 billion in sight. On the other hand, the ○○○○, etc., borrowed money from the Plaintiff, paid the balance of the agreed money to Kim○ on October of the same month, and subsequently, the ○○○, etc., which designated the name of 1.5 billion won in the name of 1.5 billion won in the name of ○○, etc., transferred the 1.5 billion mortgage, the 1.5 billion won in the form of a supplementary registration

④ Since then, on May 6, 1999, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 762,296,494 from the secured debt of 1.5 billion on the date of the open distribution date, 1.5 billion won, based on the secured debt of 1.5 billion won in the name of ○○○○○, etc., and received KRW 762,296,494 in the real estate auction procedure, which took place with the same court around 98 another 10048,0048, around 1999, with respect to the shares of ○○○ enterprise among the instant sub-storys of the instant sub-storys of this case, from the same court regarding the shares of ○○○ enterprise, 3048,000,000 won (the former priority number: 261,268, 270, 293) and the shares of ○○ Tourism.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 15, 16, 17, Eul evidence Nos. 12 and 14, witness Park Jong-○'s testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

(B) The amount of principal out of the secured claim of the right to collateral security 1.5 billion won

As seen above, on November 9, 1998, the Plaintiff: (a) delivered a promissory note with a face value of KRW 1.5 billion from the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which is one of three persons with a face value of KRW 1.5 billion; and (b) leased the money from the Plaintiff to Kim○○○○○○○○○○○○; (c) written a contract on the secured debt of KRW 1.5 billion and a contract on the transfer of the right to collateral; and (d) written an additional registration with regard to the right to collateral; and (e) written an agreement with the Plaintiff○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 5 billion, which is one billion with a collection order; (e) written agreement with the Defendant on the secured debt of KRW 1.5 billion with a view to the conclusion of a dispute over KRW 370 billion,000,000.

(C) The year to which KRW 762,296,494 belongs.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff: (a) received dividends of KRW 762,296,494 in the name of three persons, including ○○○, 14710 on the basis of the secured claim of KRW 1.50 billion; (b) KRW 937,703,506,00,000,000, KRW 9637,000,000 for interest income of KRW 1.637,703,50,000,000; (c) KRW 9696,000,000,000, KRW 9696,000,000,000; (d) KRW 969,000,000,000 for interest income of KRW 9636,00,000; and (e) KRW 969,000,000,000,000,000,000; and (e) KRW 96964,064,06,0.

In addition, even if 762,296,494 won out of the 1.5 billion won distributed on November 4, 1999 was appropriated for interest or delay damages on the secured claim of the right to collateral 6 billion won, the Plaintiff’s assertion on May 6, 1999, based on the secured claim of the right to collateral 1.5 billion won, was collected as dividends of 737,703,506 won out of 1.5 billion won on November 4, 1999, and all principal and interest on the secured claim of the right to collateral 1.5 billion won during the year 1999, and thus, it constitutes interest income or other income accrued in 1.5 billion won excluding the principal amount of 830,000 million won. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the other premise is without merit.

(D) Sub-determination

Therefore, interest income accrued in 1999 shall be KRW 670 million for interest income, and interest income accrued in 1999 shall be KRW 3,095,257,350 and KRW 2,611,093,153 and KRW 120,71,814 in total, and KRW 363,395,257,352 (=2,611,093,153,153 + KRW 120,771,814 in total). Accordingly, inasmuch as interest income and other income accrued in 1999 are global income subject to global income tax in 199, the amount shall exceed KRW 3,765,257,352,00 + KRW 3,00,000 + KRW 3,095,257,352,57,352) and shall be calculated based on the calculation of penalty tax for 199,1995.

Therefore, since 1,051, 993, and 310 won of global income tax imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff for the year 199 is imposed without considering specific penalty tax amount, it shall not be deemed unlawful as it is imposed within the reasonable tax amount.

(3) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, since global income tax imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff for the year 199 is imposed within the reasonable tax amount, it cannot be deemed unlawful. However, global income tax for the year 2002 exceeds 323,486,442 won, a legitimate tax amount, and the excess portion should be revoked.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

.