Cho High-depth2012Gu0542 (Law No. 13, 2012)

In full view of the facts, it is reasonable to view that the second loan was paid as the principal repayment of the loan.

In full view of the facts, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was paid not to pay interest on the first loan but to pay the principal of the second loan to the Plaintiff.

2012Guhap3356 global income and revocation of disposition

KimA

Head of Dong Daegu Tax Office

January 11, 2013

February 6, 2013

1. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of global income tax amounting to KRW 00 in excess of KRW 00,000, imposed on the Plaintiff on August 3, 201, shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 4, 2006, the Plaintiff lent KRW 000 to EE21 Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “EE Development”) which conducts real estate development business through the CategoryCC (the representative director of DDD) (hereinafter referred to as “the first loan”).

B. From August 2, 2010 to October 19, 2010, the head of Seogu Tax Office, upon conducting a tax investigation, deemed that the Plaintiff, with respect to the instant first loan, received the total of KRW 000 on January 10, 2007, and KRW 000 on March 15, 2007, and KRW 000 on March 16, 2007, and notified the Defendant thereof.

C. On August 3, 2011, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff omitted the report of KRW 000 on the interest income of the first loan of this case at the time of global income tax return; and (b) accordingly, imposed a revised global income tax of KRW 00 on the Plaintiff for the year 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On January 11, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on June 13, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] The whole purport of the arguments, as described in the facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, and 3 evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, and Eul evidence 2, and Eul evidence 3, and evidence 3,

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

The Plaintiff’s receipt of interest as interest on the first loan of this case is limited to KRW 000,00, which was remitted to the account of Park III on January 10, 2007, and KRW 000,000, which was remitted to the Plaintiff on March 15, 2007 and March 16, 2007, was partially repaid out of the principal amount of KRW 00,000, which was loaned to the Plaintiff separately from the first loan of this case, and the portion of the tax amount under the premise that interest income exceeds KRW 00,00 is unlawful.

3. Related statutes;

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

4. Determination

A. According to Article 16 (1) 12 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8825 of Dec. 31, 2007), and profits from non-business loans shall be interest income; and pursuant to Article 45 (9) 9-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21301 of Feb. 4, 2009), the date of payment of profits from non-business loans shall be determined by the agreement; and if no agreement is reached on the date of payment of interest or the interest is paid before the date of payment of interest pursuant to agreement, the date of payment of interest shall be the actual interest. The burden of proof in a tax imposition disposition shall be the person with the tax authority, and if the statement of a person other than the person liable to pay tax is written in the course of investigation by an investigation agency or a tax authority, it is merely a unilateral statement made by the person other than the person liable to pay tax unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du52929).

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) On July 4, 2006, the Plaintiff and the sonJ leased 000 won (Plaintiff) and 3000 won (lossJ) to EE Development as 7% monthly interest rate, and the joint security set up on July 4, 2006, as to the 2,050m2,050 square meters of the EE-si Kimcheon-si OO-dong 000, the EE Development owned on July 4, 2006, the provisional registration was cancelled on December 29, 2006. On January 10, 2007, the Plaintiff and the sonJ canceleded the above provisional registration on December 29, 2006, with the payment of KRW 300,000,000,000,000 paid to the Plaintiff by means of deposit to the Industrial Bank of Korea designated by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid 300,000,000 won to the Plaintiff.

(2) On January 12, 2007, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 000 from CC (hereinafter “instant second loan”) and borrowed KRW 000 from CC on January 16, 2007 and decided to repay it after three months.

(3) The Plaintiff received 000 won in March 15, 2007, and 000 won in total from 200 won in March 16, 2007 (hereinafter “instant amount”).

(4) On October 19, 2007, nine months after the date of the second loan of this case, CC transferred the Plaintiff’s right to claim the ownership transfer registration of the land and above-ground building (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant house”) of O-dong 000 land and above-ground building (hereinafter referred to as “the instant house”) as a security for the instant loan of 207. At the time, the instant house was at the time the Nonparty’s right to collateral security (the maximum bond amount is KRW 00, the mortgagee’s right to collateral security (the mortgagee’s right to collateral security) was established. On October 27, 2008, CC completed the ownership transfer registration of the instant house on October 27, 2008, instead of paying the second loan of this case on July 27, 2008.

(5) The HandJ stated on October 14, 2010 that the officials of the Seogu Tax Office were to cancel the provisional registration stated in the above paragraph (a) and renounced interest claims on EE development. On October 14, 2010, the son stated that the officials of the Seogu Tax Office were to have used the payment of the first loan of this case, and that the officials of the Seogu Tax Office were to have used the payment of the first eE representative director, and that 00 won was to have used the first cashier’s checks from January 16, 2007 to March 13, 2007, 235,000 won were to have used the second 935,000,000 won were to have used the second 0.375,000,000 won were to have used the second 0.15,000 won were to have used the loan, and that the remaining amount was to have been 10.75,000,0000 won were to have been 30.7.7.1.

(6) If the Plaintiff deemed that only 000 won was paid as interest on the first loan of this case, the reasonable amount of global income tax on the portion reverted to year 2007 is KRW 000.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 8-1 to 11, evidence 12-2, and evidence 13-1 to 15, Eul evidence 5, and evidence 9 to 13-3, and the purpose of the whole pleadings, as a whole, the witness evidence CC's testimony.

C. The first loan of this case was received by the Plaintiff, and the second loan of this case was not provided to the Plaintiff until the payment of this case was made, and the value of the house of this case thereafter was below the principal of the second loan of this case. ② The period from the first loan of this case until the date when the principal is received is 190 days, and when the Plaintiff received 000 won from the second loan of this case, the Plaintiff received interest rate of 12.6% per month and the agreement was received more than 7% per month, and the second loan of this case was made. ③ The Plaintiff leased the second loan of this case to the EE development and received provisional registration security jointly, and the second loan of this case was revoked after the above provisional registration was revoked, and the second loan of this case was made to the Plaintiff, and the second loan of this case was made to the Plaintiff, and the second loan of this case was made to the Plaintiff and the third loan of this case, and the third loan of this case was made to the Plaintiff, and the third loan of this case’s testimony and development of this case was made.

5. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as follows.