Only the deposit account of interest can not be regarded as the actual business operator of interest income.

In determining whether a person is a real business operator or a person who has invested money, the fact of loan interest and deposits cannot be viewed as a real business operator who can impose all profits and obligations to report.

Article 14 (Real Taxation)

Article 16 of the Income Tax Act (Interest Income)

The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

1. Purport of claim

A. Defendant ○○ director of the tax office on April 28, 2005

(1) The imposition of global income tax amounting to KRW 2,541,693,770 for the global income tax for the year 2001, KRW 3,489, 101,310 for the global income tax for the year 2002, KRW 6,672,316,520 for the global income tax for the year 2003, KRW 7,851,80,63 for the global income tax for the year 2004, shall be imposed;

(2) Of the disposition imposing global income tax amounting to KRW 450,162,290 in 2001, the portion exceeding KRW 13,786,360 in excess of KRW 13,489,100 in the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2002, the portion exceeding KRW 76,789,069 in the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2002, the portion exceeding KRW 112,605,390 in the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2003, the portion exceeding KRW 112,605,390 in the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2003, and the portion exceeding KRW 24,00,00 in the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 204.

B. Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○ on April 28, 2005

(1) Each disposition imposing tax of KRW 254,169,370 for the year 2001, KRW 348,910,130 for the year 202, KRW 670,172,180 for the year 2003, and KRW 785,18,060 for the year 204;

(2) Of the imposition disposition of KRW 45,016,220 for the resident tax of KRW 1,378,636 for the year 201, the amount exceeding KRW 348,910 for the year 202, the amount exceeding KRW 7,678,906 among the imposition disposition of KRW 348,910 for the year 2002, the amount exceeding KRW 11,260,539 among the imposition disposition of KRW 668,721,010 for the year 203, the amount exceeding KRW 11,260,539 among the imposition disposition of KRW 785,18,060 for the year 204, and the amount exceeding KRW 2,400,444 for the imposition disposition of KRW 785,40 for the year 204.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons to be implemented in this decision are as follows. In addition to the provisions of Section 8, Section 13, Section 13, Section 18, Section 20, Section 13, Section 13, Section 18, Section 20, Section 420, Section 8, Section 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Section 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the reason is as follows.

2. Justifiable tax amount.

As examined above, since the plaintiffs cannot be deemed as the actual business operators of six businesses, it is not necessary to further examine the plaintiffs' other arguments. Thus, the plaintiffs cannot impose global income tax, etc. on the financial business income of six businesses on the premise that they are the actual business operators of six businesses.

However, in order to support the legitimacy of the detailed taxation on global income, the tax authority’s assertion that only the source of income is different within the scope of global income tax subject to cumulative taxation is allowed as it constitutes a change in the grounds for disposition within the scope of maintaining homogeneity of disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Du2181, Mar. 12, 2002). Accordingly, even if the Plaintiff ○○○ is not an actual business entity of six businesses, it is a legitimate tax amount that the Plaintiff ○○○ is paid by the Plaintiff ○○○, etc., as recognized in paragraph (c) of the above 1, since it was a part of the six businesses’ representatives, as well as profits such as interest, etc., as recognized in paragraph (c) of the above 1.

Therefore, the part of the disposition of this case against the plaintiff Lee ○, among the disposition of this case, is unlawful, and the part against the plaintiff Lee ○, which exceeds the above legitimate tax amount, shall be deemed unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims in this case shall be accepted on the grounds of all of the reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and all appeals by the defendants are dismissed as they are without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.