Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap53998 ( November 08, 2013)

Money that the Plaintiff received by lending money to the class of Gangwon-do is interest income.

Income that the Plaintiff received by lending money to Gangwon-do, etc. is not reasonable in the initial disposition that deemed as interest income, since there are no grounds for recognizing it as business income in light of the frequency, size, relationship with the other party, etc.

Article 80 of the Income Tax Act

2014Nu47 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.

Kimo

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap53998 decided November 8, 2013

May 21, 2014

on 1, 2014

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The disposition of imposition of KRW 000,000, global income tax for the year 2007, global income tax for the year 2008, global income tax for the year 2009, and global income tax for the year 2009 shall be revoked. The imposition of KRW 00,000, local income tax for the year 2007, local income tax for the year 2008, and local income tax for the year 2009 shall be revoked by the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the "head of Eunpyeong-gu") against the Plaintiff on November 1, 2012.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court’s judgment is as follows, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Considering the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to view the instant interest income as the interest income accrued from a temporary and incidental loan rather than business income as alleged by the Plaintiff, in light of the following: (a) the profit-making nature, repetition, the length of the transaction period, the amount of loans, the amount of interest, and other various circumstances in the first instance trial; and (b) the Plaintiff engaged in multiple projects, including the Housing Construction and Sales Business Act, in which the Plaintiff serves as a director, etc. of a community credit cooperative; and (c) the Plaintiff appears to have no record of holding the workplace or employee related to the credit business (the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff engaged in the credit business while operating

Unlike this, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff are dismissed.

- 3-