Suwon District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-61000 ( September 16, 2015)

Where no interest agreement on non-business loans exists or interest is paid before the date of payment under the agreement, the receipt date of non-business loans shall be the date of payment of interest.

(1) It is difficult to see that there exists a specific agreement on matters relating to interest payment after the due date for an investment contract, and the existence of a judgment of civil procedure rendered as non-litigation cannot be readily concluded that there exists an interest agreement.

Article 16 of the Income Tax Act

2015Nu6058 Detailed global income and revocation of disposition

LAA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Guhap61000 Decided September 16, 2015

June 9, 2016

July 7, 2016

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. On October 2, 2013, the Defendant revoked the imposition of global income tax of KRW 83,347,500 against the Plaintiff in 2009.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts to be dried or added.

00,000 won per interest income belonging to the year 206 shall be deemed to have been reduced by considering that the exclusion period for imposition has lapsed.

○ The first instance court's third letter "from 2006. to 2008." is "from 2006. to 2007."

Then, “160,000,000 won out of the issue amount in this case is the amount additionally loaned toCC,” the first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s second first instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s “it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff is not easily able to write down the evidence No. 16.”

Then, “The Plaintiff agreed to receive interest of 10% per month even after the due date when investing money toCC,” as stated in Section 10 of Section 7 of the first instance court decision, “The Plaintiff’s evidence No. 16 is difficult to believe that it is difficult to believe that the entry of the evidence No. 16 is being made easily, and is added.”

00,000,000 won, which was determined as interest income belonging to year 2006, should be added to the following.

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.