early 2010 Heavy229 ( October 19, 201)

Since the right to collateral security established on real estate is limited to part of the loan claimed by the plaintiff, the excess amount constitutes interest income.

It is reasonable to consider that the secured claim of the right to collateral security established on real estate is limited to a part of the entire loan claimed by the plaintiff, and the evidence alone submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the real estate has secured other claims of the plaintiff, so the disposition imposing the amount exceeding the principal of the loan as

2011Guhap4651 global income and revocation of disposition, etc.

IsaA

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

May 10, 2012

May 31, 2012

1. The part of the lawsuit in this case seeking revocation of the disposition imposing resident tax shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 000 and resident tax of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 8, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired the right to collateral security at least B and the maximum amount of 000 won for the obligor’s OB and 000 units of land and its ground building 2 units (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The Plaintiff reported the principal amount of KRW 00, interest of KRW 000, and KRW 000, total amount of KRW 000, and KRW 000 in the voluntary auction procedure with respect to the instant real property. On April 15, 2008, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 000, the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant dividends”).

C. On December 1, 2009, the Defendant deemed KRW 000 as interest income, and corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 and KRW 000 as global income tax for the year 2008.

D. On March 3, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on June 25, 2010, but the request for a trial was dismissed on July 19, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] The whole purport of the arguments, and the non-satis, Gap evidence 1 to 5, evidence 1 to 2, evidence 1, 3, 4, and 8, evidence 1, evidence 4, and evidence 1 and 4 evidence 4, and evidence 2,

2. Main Safety Determination

According to Article 177-4 (1), (2), and (5) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9302 of Dec. 31, 2008), resident tax to be imposed on the defendant is a local tax to be paid to the head of the Si/Gun (the head of the Gu in the case of the Special Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities, and the same shall apply hereinafter) having jurisdiction over the place of payment of income tax, and even if the head of the tax office collects income tax by the method of assessment and assessment in accordance with the Framework Act on National Taxes or the Income Tax Act, it is deemed that the head of the Si/Gun has imposed and collected income tax, and even if the resident tax to be imposed and collected, it is also deemed that the head of the Si/Gun has imposed and collected income tax, and therefore, the defendant of an appeal litigation seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of resident tax to be imposed on the income tax of this case should be the Mayor having jurisdiction over the place of payment of the plaintiff's income tax. Therefore, the part seeking revocation of the

3. Whether the disposition imposing global income tax of this case is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff

The plaintiff extended a total of 000 won to the largestCC on seven occasions, and acquired a collateral on the real estate in this case and the land and above ground buildings (hereinafter "DD franchise", hereinafter referred to as "DD franchise"), the plaintiff collected 200 million won in the course of the sales of her mother conference around August 2004, and did not receive any remainder of the loan, but did not receive any dividends due to the senior credit in the distribution procedure of the DD venture, which was sold at voluntary auction on June 26, 2006, and the dividends in this case do not fall under the remaining principal of the loan. Accordingly, the loan credit constitutes "claim not recoverable" under Article 55 (2) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21301 of Feb. 4, 2009), and the dividends in this case constitute "a credit collected" under Article 55 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and the amount collected by the defendant from the principal of the loan in this case is unlawful.

(2) Defendant

It is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff had a loan claim other than the loan (principal KRW 000) reported in the course of voluntary auction of the real estate in this case, and even if it is recognized, it is another claim unrelated to the right to collateral security which is the cause of receiving the dividend in this case, and thus, it cannot be deemed as the principal of the loan to be appropriated from the dividend

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) In addition to the above evidence and evidence Nos. 1-6, 7, and 2-1, 2, and 3-2 of the evidence Nos. 1-2, the following facts can be acknowledged if the plaintiff asserts that he/she lent money to the highestCC.

(2) The Plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 1.44 billion to the lowestCC, and the Plaintiff acquired a collateral on DDR and the instant real estate with a joint wall on the entire real estate, and upon the request of the highestCC by which the value of the real estate was divided for the convenience of sale, the Plaintiff created each collateral on the instant real estate, each of the maximum debt amount of KRW 00 and KRW 000,000, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 000,000,000.

(3) The amount of money which can be confirmed by financial data around the date when the plaintiff's loan was made is only 00 parts of the loan amount (in particular, it does not exist at all in 2004), and there are no objective evidence to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff borrowed money other than each loan certificate or the testimony of the leastCC, and it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff borrowed 00 won in total as alleged by the above loan certificate or the testimony of the mostCC. Furthermore, even if this is recognized, it is difficult to recognize that the owner of D2 and the secured debtor of the real estate were the maximumCC, and that the real estate owner and the secured debtor of the case were 00,000 won and 20,000 won were 0,000 won and 20,000 won were 0,000 won were 20,000 won were 30,000 won were 20,000 won were 30,000 won were 20,000 won were 20,00 won were 30.

(4) Since the Plaintiff participated in the distribution procedure of the instant real estate with the principal amount of KRW 000 in the LB (or LCC) and received dividends of KRW 000,000, among these circumstances, the interest income of the said claim is realized, and the Plaintiff’s failure to recover the principal of other claims against LB (or LCC) is not affected by the above interest income tax liability, and the instant global income tax disposition is legitimate.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of the resident tax disposition is unlawful, and it is dismissed, and the remainder of the plaintiff is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.