1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 acquired 80 shares of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 acquired 80 shares of the above non-party 1 and then disposed of 80 shares of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 acquired 80 shares of the above non-party 80 shares of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 acquired 80 shares of the above non-party 9 shares of the non-party 1 and the non-party 5's shares of the non-party 80 shares of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 acquired 80 shares of the non-party 5's shares of the non-party 1 and the non-party 5's shares of the non-party 5's shares of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 5's shares of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2's shares.

2. According to Article 9 of the Corporate Tax Act, the term "deductible expenses to be deducted from profits in determining the income amount for each business year of a corporation" means the amount of losses incurred from transactions which reduce the net assets of the corporation except as otherwise provided for in the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 12 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the expenses to be included in losses as stated in subparagraphs 1 through 15 shall be the 16 amount which has accrued or will accrue to the corporation as losses other than those listed in subparagraphs 1 through 15." Thus, if a corporation prepares financial statements according to corporate accounting standards or generally accepted accounting standards, and reports corporate income based on the increase or decrease of assets in its financial statements under tax law, unless otherwise provided for in the tax law, the increase or decrease of assets under such financial statements shall be considered as corporate income, but if a corporation is treated as a closed account without knowledge of the existence or absence of assets until the date of filing the tax base return of corporate tax, it shall not be permitted as the actual return or expenditure, nor shall it be allowed as the income or settlement of profits in the account.

In addition, barring any other special circumstances, it can be recognized and disposed of by the representative on the ground that it is already leaked, barring any other special circumstance that the amount corresponding to the assets of the processed process denied or the amount corresponding to the expenditure expected to have been paid, and the process and details of the divulgence are unclear.

3. According to the records, the amount that the defendant is the object of the disposition of income in this case is not denied by the non-party company's liability for the non-party company's related company's company's accounting of debentures raised by the non-party 5, the representative of the non-party company, and corresponding accounting of various assets under the name of the non-party 5, etc., such as the above non-party company's non-party company's non-party debt in the related account book, etc., but it was not known that the non-party company itself did not complete the cause of shortage of assets, such as cash, etc., at the time of settlement. Thus, as long as the plaintiff holding related account books or evidence clearly fails to disclose the existence or the cause of the shortage of cash, it is clear that the non-party company's non-party company'

However, according to the court below's decision, the non-party 5 purchased the land, etc. in its decision from 1980 to 1981, and paid the price thereof, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the non-party 5 himself and the non-party, etc., after completing the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the above non-party 5 himself and the non-party, etc., the company created and managed the real estate list and paid the land exchange price on February 1981, but around June 1983, the non-party company entered the funds raised by the above non-party 5 in the company's account book as the company's loan and appropriated the above land, etc. into the company's assets. Thus, it is difficult to view that the above non-party 5's land, etc. acquired as the company's assets at the time of settlement of accounts, but it was not revealed that the amount was used as the acquisition fund of the land, etc. in the above decision. Above all, it is hard to find out that the court below's reasons.

4. On the other hand, the court below determined that the above land acquisition fund or exchange price would not have been disbursed from the amount of the account for the settlement of accounts in this case, and determined that the amount of the account for the settlement of accounts in this case is not an known income. Further, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the attribution of income from the amount of the account for settlement of accounts in this case, and determined that the amount of the money in this case was actually used for the acquisition of the land in this case, and determined that the cause for the shortage of cash was due to the payment of the land price in this decision, not due to the payment of the land price in this case, and that the amount would have been used in land acquisition in light of the legal principles on the disposition of income.

5. Ultimately, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, since it is clear that the court below did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the reversion of the amounts of the settlement of accounts of the non-settlement of the case or contradictory reasons.

6. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)