Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap8311 ( November 22, 2012)

Cho High Court Decision 201Do4839 ( December 23, 2011)

It is reasonable to view that it is not possible to regard it as engaging in credit business, and it is reasonable to regard it as profits from non-business loans temporarily and retrospectively generated.

(1) It is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff engaged in a credit business during the period in which the Plaintiff borrowed money and received interest, and there is insufficient evidence to deem that the interest income was paid by a person who does not engage in a credit business for a period in which the Plaintiff received money, as a result of temporary and incidental lending of money, the interest income is deemed as the interest received as a result of a temporary and incidental loan of money, and thus, the initial tax disposition

2012Nu38413 global income and revocation of disposition

Note AAAA

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap8311 Decided November 22, 2012

May 22, 2013

June 5, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Each disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on August 11, 201 shall be revoked in entirety, with the global income tax of 000 won for the year 2005, global income tax of 000 won for the year 2006, global income tax of 000 won for the year 2007, global income tax of 000 won for the year 2008, and global income tax of 000 won for the year 2009.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why this court should be explained, and except for addition to the following paragraphs, the decision on the plaintiff's argument that is especially emphasized or re-emphasized by this court is the same as the reasons stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and by Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant interest income received from BB Construction constitutes business income because it is difficult to view BB as 200, the Plaintiff’s interest income received from BB Construction for 10 consecutive years, and the instant interest income received from BB Construction for 20 years. The issue of whether the Plaintiff’s monetary loan income depends on whether it constitutes a business under the Income Tax Act, and whether it constitutes a business under the Income Tax Act, such as profit for the pertinent monetary transaction, continuousness, and the difference between the amount of interest income (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du14505, Aug. 19, 2005). The Plaintiff did not appear to have received 200 years since 20 years since 30 years since 20 years since 20 years since 30 years since 30 years since 20 years since 30 years since 30 years since 30 years since 40 years since 200.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.