The adequacy of imposition of income tax on interest income that cannot be collected as principal;

If the proprietor acquired KRW 9,200,000 as interest interest on loans from March 10, 1980 to September 10 of the same year, even if it was impossible for him to recover the principal due to business failure from October 1980 after the repayment of the above interest income, with respect to the interest income received prior to the completion of the receipt time under Article 57 (1) of the Income Tax Act, and the imposition of income tax is justifiable in view of the income of 1980,000, which is the income of the corresponding year.

Article 17(1) of the former Income Tax Act (Act No. 3175), Article 57 of the former Income Tax Act, Article 28(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9793)

Plaintiff

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

1. As of May 1, 1982, the Defendant’s imposition of global income tax amounting to KRW 2,833,611, defense tax amounting to KRW 589,94, and the amount of KRW 945,00,00, which was imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff as of May 1, 1982, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be four minutes, one of which shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 2,833,611, defense tax of KRW 589,94, and penalty tax of KRW 945,00 for occasional failure to withhold taxes of KRW 945,00 for the year 1982 against the Plaintiff as of May 1, 1982 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details of the imposition disposition; and

3. In the event that the plaintiff received 0.3 tax invoices for the above amount of interest income of 0.1, 6.2, 3 (In the above amount of interest income of 0.3, 80 won for the above amount of interest income of 0.3, 100 won for the above amount of 0.4, 200 won for the above amount of interest income of 0.3, 100 won for the above amount of interest income of 0.4, 200 won for the above amount of 0.4, 30 won for the above amount of interest income of 0.4, 100 won for the above amount of interest income of 0.4, 30 won for the above amount of interest income of 00 won for the above amount of 0.4, 200 won for the above amount of interest income of 0.4, 300 won for the above amount of interest income and 4.0 won for the above amount of 9,000 won for the above amount of tax base

2. As to the defendant's assertion of legality of the disposition of this case on the grounds of the above disposition and legal provisions

First, since the defendant's above 9,20,00 won was 10,00 won as interest income of 10,000 won, the remaining 7,00 won was agreed to pay 10,00 won after the case of loan mediation. Since it was impossible for non-party 1 to collect principal as business failure after October 1980, the above 7,000 won was not paid to non-party 1,00 won as well as the remaining interest income of 10,000 won, the above 10,000 won was paid to non-party 8,00 won as interest income of 10,000 won, and the above 10,000 won was paid to non-party 2,00 won was not paid to non-party 1,00 won before the above 9,00 won was paid to non-party 1,000 won for the above 9,00 won was not paid to the non-party 2,000 won.

Second, if 4 non-party 2, etc. in the name column among the statement of non-party 1 on March 6, 1980, borrowed 135,00,000 won in the principal column from among the statement of non-party 1 on the same statement of non-party 2, etc., the plaintiff shall offer good offices and offer them to the non-party 1, and from March 10, 1980 to September 10 of the same year at the request of the above creditor, the interest of KRW 37,80,000 in the sum of the interest amount column of the same statement of non-party 1 on the same statement of non-party 1, the debtor, received it from the non-party 1, and delivered it to the non-party 2, etc. and delivered it to the non-party 4, and it is not believed otherwise in light of the above recognition of part of the above evidence No. 1-5 of the above non-party 1, which is contrary to the above recognition.

According to the above facts, a person who has legal obligation to pay interest on the above loan is a debtor, and the plaintiff is a person who has received the above interest from the non-party 1 upon the creditor's request and delivered it to the non-party 2 et al. who is the creditor. According to Article 142 of the Income Tax Act, a person who pays the following income or revenue amount to a resident or non-resident in Korea shall withhold income tax from the resident or non-resident (paragraph 1), and a person who has the obligation to pay withholding tax under Paragraph 1 of the above Article shall withhold income tax from the resident or non-resident within the scope of the delegation or delegation. (Article 182 (1) of the above Act provides that a person who has the obligation to pay withholding tax under Paragraph 1 of the above Article shall report his act to the principal or delegating within the scope of delegation or delegation, and shall apply the above Paragraph 1 to a withholding agent. Accordingly, according to each of the above provisions, a person who has the obligation to pay withholding tax shall not be included in the person who actually has the obligation to pay the income or revenue amount.

Therefore, the plaintiff is merely a person who received the above interest from the debtor and actually delivered it to the creditors, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff was acting or delegated with the collection authority of the above interest income, and thus, it does not constitute the above withholding agent. Therefore, the above withholding tax imposed on the plaintiff shall be revoked as it is illegal and it should be revoked.

3. Thus, the part of the defendant's disposition of this case which exceeds 2,833,611 won of global income tax, defense tax amounting to 589,994 won of additional tax amounting to 945,000 won of non-payment of withholding tax exceeding 2,83,611 won of global income tax and defense tax amounting to 589,994 shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim of this case of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder shall be dismissed with no reason. It is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act,

Judges Kim Jong-Un (Presiding Judge) Guil-do