Article 19 (Business Income)

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

The following facts may be admitted by adding the whole arguments to each entry into evidence 3, evidence 4, evidence 2, and evidence 5, and evidence 1, and evidence 1, that there is no dispute between the Parties:

A. On October 31, 2005, the Plaintiff engaged in the medical business, and acquired 223,460,000N from the Industrial Bank of Korea to ○○○-dong, Seoul and ○○○-15, and one building on its ground for business purposes. At that time, as the exchange rate of 90.39 won per 100N reduced to 860.04 won on December 31, 2005, there was a profit from KRW 90,16,110 in Korean won at the exchange rate as of the end of 2005.

B. On December 1, 2007, the Plaintiff paid the global income tax for 2005 without including the above evaluation marginal profit in total amount, and the Defendant additionally imposed KRW 38,33,780, which was calculated by subtracting the above evaluation marginal profit from the global income tax of KRW 46,98,260 calculated by adding the above evaluation marginal profit to the total amount of income in 2005.

2. Related statutes;

Article 4 (Classification of Income)

Article 19 (Business Income)

Article 24 (Calculation of Gross Income Amount)

Article 27 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses)

Article 39 (Accretion Year, etc. of Gross Income and Necessary Expenses)

Article 97 (Evaluation of Asset or Debt in Foreign Currency)

3. The legality of disposition.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) First, Article 39(4) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter “the instant legal provision”) delegates to the enforcement decree the limitation of delegated legislation without specifically stipulating the scope on the year to which the total amount of income is attributed, thereby violating Articles 38 and 59 of the Constitution providing for the limitation of delegated legislation.

(2) In addition, Article 97(1) of the former Enforcement Decree (amended by the Enforcement Decree of this case) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of this case”) stipulates taxation on unrealized profits and deviates from the scope of delegation by the mother law, and goes against the principle of substantial taxation under the no taxation without law and the principle of excessive prohibition of property rights under the Constitution.

B. Determination

(1) First, the plaintiff's first proposal is presented.

According to Articles 24(1) and (3), 27(3), and 39(1) of the Income Tax Act and Article 24(1) and (3), and 27(3), and 39(1) of this Act, the matters necessary for the scope of the amount imported or imported in the year concerned, the amount of gross income, the amount necessary for the calculation of the amount of necessary expenses corresponding to the gross income, and necessary matters for the year in which the total income and necessary expenses are determined by the Presidential Decree, and, in particular, the amount delegated to the Presidential Decree is related to the year in which the total income and necessary expenses are determined. In addition, the delegation to the Presidential Decree is for appropriate response to changes in economic reality, and it cannot be said that it is a comprehensive delegation to the Presidential Decree, which is an important part of the taxation requirement, for the year in which the tax is determined.

Therefore, the legal provision of this case cannot be deemed to be in violation of Article 75 of the Constitution on the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation, and it cannot be deemed to be in violation of Articles 38 and 59 of the Constitution, which are the general provisions of Article 75

(2) Next, the second main note of the plaintiff is the plaintiff.

Whether the scope of capital gains, which are subject to taxation, should be limited to income realized or includes unrealized gain, is a matter of legislative policy that is determined by considering the purpose of taxation, the characteristics of taxable income, and the problems in taxation technology, and cannot be seen as contradictory or inconsistent with the concept of taxation under the Constitution (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu18122, Nov. 10, 195). In addition, just because the provision of the Enforcement Decree of this case includes unrealized gain in total income, it shall not be deemed that it goes beyond the scope of delegation of the Income Tax Act, or that it violates the principle of substantial taxation under the Constitution. Further, income tax calculated taxable income as a unit of taxable period determined artificially by the principle of taxation without the law, and all necessary income and expenses belonging to residents need to be attributed to a specific taxable period under any specific principle or standard, and if foreign currency assets and debts occur in the corresponding year, it cannot be deemed that the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act violates the basic principle of property rights to be included in necessary expenses in the corresponding year in the corresponding year, or to the corresponding year.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.