B. Whether a rectification of the corrected taxation disposition can be made in the objection procedure (negative)

(c) Method of calculating gains on transfer under the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12878, Dec. 30, 1989) where only one of the transfer values and acquisition values is unclear;

D. The meaning of a case where the acquisition value under Article 59-2(3) of the Corporate Tax Act is unclear in the calculation of transfer margin in a case where a corporation transfers assets acquired before December 31, 1974 (=the current market price unknown as of January 1, 1975)

B. In a case where the grounds for objection regarding the taxation disposition are recognized to be correct in the process of appeal, and accordingly the necessary disposition was rendered, it cannot be reversed without any special reasons and re-scheduled the previous disposition in light of the purport of the law recognizing the objection system and the method of correction accordingly.

C. In applying the interpretation and application of Article 59-2(3) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 124-2(6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12878 of Dec. 30, 1989), which provides for the method of calculating gains on transfer of special surtax, even if the type of transaction is similar to that of Article 170(4)1 and 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989), even if the type of transaction is similar to that of Article 170(4)1 and 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the proviso to Article 170(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act shall not be applied mutatis mutandis

D. According to Article 7 of the Addenda of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 7464 of Dec. 31, 1974), if a corporation transfers assets acquired before December 31, 1974 after the transfer, even if the transfer value can be known, the value assessed on the basis of the current market price on January 1, 1975 should be confirmed to be based on the calculation of transfer margin. Thus, in Article 59-2(3) of the Corporate Tax Act, where the acquisition value is unclear, it means the case where the current market price is unknown as of January 1, 1975.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1

According to Article 9(1) of the Corporate Tax Act, income for each business year of a domestic corporation shall be the total amount of earnings which belongs or comes to the corresponding business year minus the total amount of losses which will belong to the corresponding business year, and Article 17(1) of the same Act provides that the income amount which is the corporate tax base shall be calculated for each business year by stipulating that the business year to which a domestic person's earnings and losses accrue shall belong to the business year to which the date when the concerned earnings and losses are determined, shall be included in the business year. According to the legal determination of the court below, it shall be decided that the confiscation of the seized articles of this case against the plaintiff on March 15, 1984, which is the date of commencement of the business year of the plaintiff's business ( April 15 of the same year). Thus, the value of the above forfeited articles of this case shall not be included in the deductible expenses for the business year of 1983, apart from the inclusion of the loss for the business year of 1983.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that even if the defendant erred in deeming the value of the forfeited goods to be included in the calculation of losses under Article 16 subparagraph 4 of the Corporate Tax Act, it shall not be erroneous in the calculation of earnings in the business year of 1984, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of earnings, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for appeal.

2. As to ground of appeal No. 2 by the Plaintiff

In light of the records, the court below's determination that the plaintiff received a false tax invoice from the non-party 13,90,000 won, which is equivalent to the value-added tax, shall not be accepted. The court below did not err in violating the rules of evidence in the above recognition process, and all of the remaining arguments are based on the premise that the above amount was paid in 13,90,000 won, and there is no reason.

3. As to the Defendant’s first ground of appeal

In a case where the grounds for appeal regarding taxation have been recognized as correct in the process of appeal, and accordingly necessary measures have been taken, it is not possible to reverse the previous disposition without any special reasons in light of the purport of the law recognizing the objection system and the method of correction accordingly (see Supreme Court Decision 77Nu266, Jan. 31, 1978; Supreme Court Decision 79Nu122, Mar. 11, 1980). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s submission of an agreement on loan for real use (No. 42-3, No. 25-1, No. 266-1, and No. 26-4, Nov. 15, 1986; 39,420,364, Nov. 4, 1984; 1936, etc., were not sufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had no evidence to recognize the amount of the above taxation for real use (No. 439,430-1,3643).

In light of the records, the above measures of the court below are acceptable and there is no error of law by mistake of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

4. As to the Defendant’s second ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff purchased soil from truck drivers working at the above construction site in the neighboring construction site from March 1, 1983 to March 1984, and from January 1, 1984 to spring of 1985, the plaintiff actually paid approximately KRW 139,00,000 for its own expenses, and the plaintiff did not receive receipts or simplified tax invoices, etc. for the above reclamation expenses from truck drivers, and the plaintiff concluded a contract for the reclamation banking work of the above municipal ordinance owned by the non-party Samdong Co., Ltd. and the above municipal ordinance owned by the non-party 139,00,000, and received a false tax invoice from the above company and reported it as losses.

In examining the above measures of the court below in light of the records, it is acceptable to accept them, and there is no error of law by incomplete deliberation or misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence. There is no reason for discussing.

5. As to Defendant 3’s ground of appeal

According to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiff acquired 22,808 square meters of site 22,808 square meters of the above Ordinance 123-2 site of the above Ordinance before December 31, 1974 and transferred it to April 20, 1985. Thus, the acquisition date of the above land transferred after January 1, 1982 pursuant to Article 7 of the Addenda of the former Corporate Tax Act (Act No. 2686 of Dec. 21, 1974) shall be deemed to be January 1, 1975.

In addition, Article 59-2 (3) of the Corporate Tax Act, which was enforced at the time of the establishment of the taxation requirement of this case, stipulates that the transfer value and acquisition value shall be the transfer value and acquisition value, respectively, in the calculation of gains on transfer, which are the tax base of special surtax. Article 124-2 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the above standard market value shall be based on the standard market price stipulated in Article 115 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and Article 170 (4), (1), and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989), and Article 170 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which provides for the method of calculating gains on transfer, which are the tax base of special surtax, shall not apply mutatis mutandis (However, Article 124-2 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act newly established on December 30, 1989).

Therefore, in interpreting and applying the former Corporate Tax Act and its Enforcement Decree, which provides the method of calculating gains from transfer of the special surtax, even though the transaction type is similar to those under Article 170 (4) 1 and 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the proviso of Article 170 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied mutatis mutandis or applied by analogy (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu9800, Aug. 8, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 88Nu1073, May 24, 198; Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6269, Dec. 13, 198; etc.). In calculating gains from transfer of the special surtax of corporate tax, if only one of the transfer values and acquisition values is unclear, all of the above two values should be calculated based on the standard market price.

However, according to Article 7 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 7464 of Dec. 31, 1974), the acquisition value of the assets acquired before December 31, 1974 shall be the book value assessed by the current market price (if the market price cannot be determined, January 1, 1975; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the basis of the current market price as of January 1, 1975, but the book value before December 31, 1974 shall be the book value assessed by the current market price as of December 31, 1974, and the sum of the amounts calculated by multiplying the book value before December 31, 1974 by the increase rate of wholesale prices during the holding period from the date of acquisition until December 31, 1974, if the market price is higher than the market price assessed by the current market price as of January 1, 1975, it shall be interpreted that the acquisition value at the present market price is unknown.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the transfer price and the acquisition price shall be based on the standard market price calculated pursuant to Article 124-2 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 115 (1) 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the transfer price and the acquisition price shall be determined based on the standard market price calculated pursuant to Article 124-2 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 115 (1) 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act on or before December 31, 194, of this case acquired and transferred after January

6. Therefore, each appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won