Seoul Administrative Court 2007Guhap41420 ( July 24, 2008)

National High Court Decision 2007Du1754 (Law No. 24, 2007)

The legitimacy of the assertion that the disposition was vested in the investor by recognizing the amount of processed purchase

In full view of the fact that it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff used an investor’s account by simply returning investment money, and that the Plaintiff did not submit an investment agreement or financial data, etc. to which the amount of investment was deposited, the Plaintiff is deemed to have reverted to the Plaintiff.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 67 (Disposal of Income)

Article 20 (Earned Income Tax)

1. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed.

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

On October 9, 2006, the first instance judgment is revoked. The Defendant’s disposition to impose upon the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 458,477,980 on the part of the Plaintiff for the year 2004 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reason why the court should explain in relation to this case is the same as the entry of the corresponding part of the reason for the judgment of the first instance except for adding the following parts to the sixth closed closed part of the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional parts; and

In addition, according to Gap evidence Nos. 19 and 20, Kimnam may recognize the fact that he received a promissory note from ○○ Development on October 4, 2004, the face value of KRW 670 million, and the due date of October 30, 2004 from ○○○○ Development on October 29, 2004 that he received a transfer of KRW 670 million from ○○○○○○○. It is difficult to view that the money received from ○○nam was used as a land purchase price after the purchase of the land, and it is difficult to view that ○○○○○○○ was used as a land purchase price, and it is difficult to accept the plaintiff's assertion that ○○○○○○○’s investment had been issued a promissory note on ○○ Development, other than the plaintiff, and that ○○○○○○’s investment had not arrived at the expiration of the due date, and it is also difficult to use it as evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff’s allegation that it was made.

Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first island is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.