Early High Court Decision 2013J 3465 ( December 10, 2013)

There is no material to specify the profits of non-business loans included in interest income;

The disposition made without accurately specifying the plaintiff's interest income amount is unlawful, and it constitutes a disposition without any evidence to specify the plaintiff's interest income amount which can be assessed lawfully by the relevant taxable period.

Article 51 of the Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act

2014Guhap7041 Global Income and Revocation of Disposition

AA

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

March 31, 2015

May 8, 2015

1. The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 17,451,30 on April 25, 2013 against the Plaintiff on April 2013, 207, global income tax of KRW 61,13,190 on global income belonging to 2009, and global income tax of KRW 108,438,760 on global income belonging to 2010 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff transferred money from December 2003 to November 201, 2010 to AA with his money collected from his own money and his son as a loan. The Han transferred the principal and interest on the loan to the Plaintiff. The details of money transfers between the Plaintiff, Han and his son identified through the Plaintiff’s account through the Plaintiff’s passbook are as follows.

B. From April 25, 2013 to October 2010, the Defendant: (a) determined that the amount of money that the Plaintiff remitted to the Plaintiff’s passbook (B) from the money that the Plaintiff remitted to the Plaintiff’s passbook (III) and the amount that the Plaintiff remitted to the Plaintiff’s branch was deducted from the Plaintiff’s interest income; and (b) imposed global income tax of KRW 17,451,30,30, global income tax of KRW 61,13,190, global income tax of KRW 61,43,190, global income tax of KRW 108,438,760, global income tax of April 25, 2013 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2 to 9, Eul evidence 1 to 4

- Each description of each number including a number of

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. According to Article 51(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, when calculating interest income, if the creditor is unable to recover all or part of the principal and interest from the debtor or a third party, the interest income shall be calculated by subtracting the principal from the recovered amount. In such a case, if the recovered amount falls short of the principal, it shall be deemed that there is no interest income. However, if the amount transferred from around 2003 to the plaintiff from around 2010 to around 2010 is deducted both the money remitted to the plaintiff by Korea (Ⅲ) and the money remitted by the plaintiff to the plaintiff to the plaintiff to the plaintiff (â……), the amount is less than the principal loaned by the plaintiff to Korea, and Korea-A is currently unable to repay the loan to the plaintiff any more due to the execution of the sentence, and therefore, it shall be deemed that there is no interest income of the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant rendered the instant disposition by treating the Plaintiff’s money transferred from Han to Han for the same period from the money received from Han to the Plaintiff during each taxable period, and the amount calculated by subtracting the money transferred by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff’s other party as interest income in the pertinent taxable period. Since the money paid by Han to the Plaintiff is included not only in the pertinent taxable period but also in the principal lent to Han before it, the amount calculated by the Defendant cannot be deemed as interest income in the pertinent taxable period.

3. Determination

(a) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

B. Determination on the first argument

According to Article 51(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23588, Feb. 2, 2012; Presidential Decree No. 2358, hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree"), Article 19-2(8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, where a creditor is unable to recover all or part of the principal and interest from the debtor's execution of the debtor's punishment, it shall be calculated by preferentially subtracting the principal from the recovered amount. If the recovered amount falls short of the principal, the total profit amount shall not be recovered from the execution of the sentence of Han 4, and if the amount recovered by the plaintiff falls short of the principal amount of the loan of Han 3,5,688, 40, 300, 60, 60, 9, 5 through 7, 102, 90, 300, 60, 60, 30, 40, 60, 60, 9, 30, 1.

C. Judgment on the second argument

According to Article 45 (9)-2 of the former Enforcement Decree, when interest is paid through an agreement, the date on which the interest income is actually paid shall be deemed the receipt date of the interest income. Income tax is so-called "period-based taxation imposing tax on the income amount for one year from January 1 to December 31 of each year." Thus, in order to impose interest income generated from non-business profits on global income tax base, the amount of such interest income should be specified by taxable period. In this case, health class, the plaintiff, the plaintiff's personal seal, and the Han-A receives money over a number of months from around 2003 to around 2010, and therefore, the amount of the interest income received from Han-J from Han-J in the pertinent taxable period is not deemed to include some principal money remitted from Han-J to Han before the pertinent taxable period, and even if the plaintiff received from the plaintiff or the plaintiff's personal seal before the pertinent taxable period, the method of calculating the amount of the interest income from the plaintiff's personal interest income to each of the pertinent taxable periods is not included in the pertinent amount of the plaintiff's personal interest income.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the disposition of this case without accurately specifying the plaintiff's interest income amount is unlawful, and there is no other material to specify the plaintiff's interest income amount that can calculate the legitimate tax amount to be imposed lawfully by each relevant taxable period. Thus, the disposition of this case should be revoked in whole.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.