It is unreasonable that the entry amount of the passbook is a non-business profit without distinction between the principal, interest, and period of attribution.

It is difficult to regard the deposit details of the head of the Tong as non-business payment, and even if there was a money lending transaction, it is difficult to see that all of the deposit amounts falls under interest income until confirming the original amount and whether it is repaid, etc. by legitimate tax root data.

Article 16 of the Income Tax Act

Article 24 of the Income Tax Act

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Defendant’s claim for revocation of the tax amount exceeding KRW 248,723,893 among the disposition of global income tax of KRW 266,026,420 for the Plaintiff on June 1, 2007, and exceeding KRW 121,656,970 for the global income tax of KRW 129,734,630 for the global income tax of KRW 129,734,630 for the year 203.

2. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 121,656,970 as global income tax of KRW 248,723,893 as global income tax of KRW 2003 as of June 1, 2007 and KRW 101,717,710 as of global income tax of KRW 204 as of 203 as of June 1, 2007 is revoked.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 90% of the costs of lawsuit are borne by the Defendant, and 10% of the remainder by the Plaintiff, respectively.

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 266,026,420 for the year 2002, global income tax of KRW 129,734,630 for the year 2003, and global income tax of KRW 101,717,710 for the year 2004 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole in the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, 3, 1-2, 1-1, 2-2, 2-2, 1, 2-3, 3, and 4:

A. The director of the tax office of Seodaemun-gu confirmed the following (the above details are confirmed by the depositee's real name, and the monthly amount is the same) deposited in the Plaintiff's bank account, and notified the Defendant as taxation data, upon receiving the information on tax evasion that the Plaintiff was informed that 4 ○○○ ○○ 6 and 23- ○○ 23- ○ ○ ○ 23-4, Seoul ○○ 2007, and conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff on March 13, 2007 through May 4, 2007.

The omission of tables.

B. On June 1, 2007, the Defendant imposed the global income tax of KRW 26,026,420, KRW 129,734,630 and KRW 101,717,710 of the global income tax of KRW 1,153,153,225, excluding the principal of KRW 163,637,00,000 among the total amount of KRW 163,637,00,00, and KRW 266,026,420, and KRW 129,734,630 of the global income tax of KRW 203 and KRW 101,717,710 of the global income tax of KRW 204.

C. On Aug. 24, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the National Tax Tribunal on December 31, 2007, and received a partial decision of acceptance. Accordingly, in accordance with the purport of the above decision, the Defendant reduced the tax amount of global income tax for the year 2002 to KRW 248,723,893, and the global income tax for the year 2003 to KRW 121,656,970, respectively, and notified the correction and notification thereof (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Of the instant lawsuit, whether each revocation of the amount exceeding KRW 248,723,893, out of the amount of imposition of global income tax of KRW 266,02,026,420, exceeds KRW 248,723,893, and the portion of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the amount exceeding KRW 121,656,970, out of the amount of global income tax of KRW 129,734,630,

As seen earlier, the Defendant corrected and notified the tax amount of global income tax for the year 2002 to KRW 248,723,893, and the global income tax for the year 2003 to KRW 121,656,970, respectively. If the disposition of tax reduction is corrected or corrected, the portion of the tax amount reduced in the initial disposition becomes retroactively null and void. Thus, the Defendant’s claim for revocation thereof is without a benefit of lawsuit.

Therefore, among the lawsuit in this case, the tax amount exceeding 248,723,893 won out of the imposition disposition of global income tax of 226,026,420 won for the year 202 and the tax amount exceeding 121,656,970 won out of the global income tax of 2003 is unlawful.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In order to impose legitimate taxation, the disposition of this case, which simply regarded the amount deposited in the Plaintiff’s bank account as interest income, should be specified in terms of the payment date, loan amount, interest rate, interest calculation period, interest payment date and amount, and whether the principal is repaid, etc. for each debtor, is unlawful (the amount deposited in the Plaintiff’s bank account is against the principle of base taxation under Article 16 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and is not interest income as the payment of promissory note lent to the Plaintiff’s company, etc.,

(b) Related statutes;

Article 16 of the Income Tax Act

Article 24 of the Income Tax Act

Article 45 of the Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act

C. Determination

(1) In general, if it is revealed that the facts alleged to have been subject to taxation in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process, it cannot be readily concluded that the other party is an illegal disposition that failed to meet the requirements for taxation in question, unless the other party proves that the facts in question were not subject to the application of the empirical rule in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process. However, a person who has the primary burden of proof as a person who has the primary burden of proof should prove the alleged facts of taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13894, Jul. 10, 1

In this case, evidence (Evidence No. 3) submitted by the defendant in the lawsuit of this case, which served as the basis for the disposition of this case is all the deposit details of the plaintiff's bank account. Based on this, the defendant recognized that all remaining amounts excluding some of the above deposit amounts are interest income, and disposed of this case. On the other hand, the plaintiff argued that the above deposit amount is the amount of a promissory note lent to the nearest person such as a relative relationship or the company that invested his/her shares, and the amount received prior to maturity or the amount of a long-term sales claim collected before maturity. Thus, it is difficult to see that the statement No. 3 alone is sufficient to prove that the plaintiff lent money to the plaintiff and received the same amount as the above deposit details as that of the interest, or that there was such presumption (in particular, it is difficult to see that the above deposit interest income is the whole amount of the above deposit amount until confirming the original amount and whether the payment was made by legitimate source data.

(2) In addition, even if the above amount of money was paid for a loan as alleged by the defendant in domestic affairs, if the loan is conducted as a business, the interest accrued from the principal bond constitutes business income, and such business income differs from the interest income subject to cumulative taxation under the Income Tax Act, even if it is global income subject to cumulative taxation under the Income Tax Act. Thus, the defendant should have determined whether the Plaintiff’s monetary transaction is a interest income or business income by determining whether the Plaintiff’s monetary transaction income is in line with the Plaintiff’s business activity in light of the overall circumstances such as the size, recovery, mode, etc., and determine whether the Plaintiff’s monetary transaction is continuous and repeated to the extent that it can be seen as business activity, and accordingly, the disposition of this case was unlawful in itself without going through the procedure for verifying such facts, although it was alleged that the Plaintiff had engaged in the business at a secret office without going through the procedure for verifying such facts (the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff had engaged in the business without the registration of the business, but the above disposition was based on the premise that the above amount of interest income

(3) Furthermore, Article 45 subparagraph 9-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the payment date of interest under the so-called non-business proceeds shall be the date of payment of interest: Provided, That in case where there is no agreement on the date of payment of interest, or where interest is paid prior to the date of payment of interest under the agreement, or interest was excluded from the calculation of gross income pursuant to Article 51 (7), regardless of the date of payment of interest, it shall be the date of payment of the income at this time, regardless of whether or not the interest was actually paid at that time. Thus, even if the above amount of payment was a interest arising from a monetary loan as alleged by the defendant, the defendant must confirm the time of payment of interest and determine the time of payment of the interest, even though the defendant should have confirmed the time of payment of the interest, the disposition in this case

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuits in this case, the above 2 and the above 2 are dismissed, and the remaining claims of the plaintiff are reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting them.

* The instant case is the case which has been terminated as waiver of appeal.