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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 77,029,050 of corporate tax for the business year 1997 as of December 29, 2001 and KRW 361,721,931 of corporate tax for the business year 1998 as of October 1, 2002, and the imposition of KRW 60,845,040 of value-added tax for the first period of December 29, 1997 as of December 29, 2001 and value-added tax of KRW 16,532,570 of value-added tax for the second period of February 1997, and value-added tax of KRW 148,715,99 of value-added tax for the first period of January 1, 1998 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

The plaintiff sought revocation of each disposition stated in the claim in the first instance court against the defendant, and is subject to such revocation.

The part that exceeds KRW 574,245,001 of the disposition of corporate tax for the business year of 1997 and the part that seeks revocation exceeding KRW 1980,052,373 of the disposition of corporate tax for the business year of 1998 and the part that seeks revocation of the disposition of corporate tax for each business year of 1997 and 1998, but the part that seeks revocation of the disposition of corporate tax for each business year of 1997 and the part that seeks revocation of the disposition of value-added tax for each business year of 1998 is dismissed, but it is apparent in the record that only the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the first instance court against the lost part. Thus, the part that exceeds KRW 574,245,001 of the disposition of corporate tax for the business year of 1997 and the part that exceeds KRW 190,052

2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the court's reasoning concerning this case is as follows: ① "the plaintiff," the fourth 8 line of the judgment of the court of first instance, entered into a sales contract with the non-party 1 corporation to purchase machinery and vehicle transport equipment around September 1996, ② "not to be included in the deductible expenses" as stated in the fifth 3 line, and the above lease assets shall not be included in the deductible expenses, and the tax credit amounting to KRW 50,61,142, and the temporary investment credit amounting to KRW 1,05,95,950 shall be excluded from the tax credit for small and medium enterprises with the assets actually acquired, and ③ the "before the amendment" as stated in the fourth 4 line of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the second 17 line shall be added to "the plaintiff," the second 17 line of the judgment as stated in the second 198, and the second 17 line of the judgment as stated in the defendant's second 3rd 1, 198."

3. The addition;

A. The assertion regarding the scope of claims that should be included in assets among claims related to the sale and purchase of this case (in relation to the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance 4.c. (3) (f) and (4))

The defendant asserts that even if the amount of claims related to the sale and purchase acquired by the plaintiff against the non-party 1 corporation following the return of the leased article of this case is equivalent to the remaining value of the leased article of this case, the remaining value should be calculated by the market value, not by the value on the account book, not by the acquisition value of the leased article of this case and the amount obtained by deducting each depreciation in 197 and 198.

On the other hand, there may be cases where the value of the property in the account book after deducting the depreciation amount from the acquisition value as the defendant's assertion fails to accurately reflect the current market value of the property in question. However, the above assertion by the defendant is not acceptable in light of the fact that the equipment such as the leased property in this case, such as the leased property in a short period of time, makes the actual market value lower than the remaining book value, recognize the depreciation amount as depreciation costs under tax law, and there is no way to calculate the remaining value of the leased property in this case other than the method of deducting the depreciation amount from the acquisition value as above in this case. Furthermore, according to the defendant's argument, the market value of the property in this case should be appraised at the market value at the time of termination of the sales contract, and the appraisal value should be included in the account book as the amount of claims,

(b) Claim on the tax credit for small and medium enterprises and temporary tax credit for investment of corporate tax (4.f. related to the grounds of the judgment of the first instance);

In other words, the defendant asserts that even if the leased article of this case is deemed the plaintiff's assets, since the leased article of this case is re-acquisitiond by the non-party 1 corporation from the lease company of this case, it is an investment in used goods, and thus, it cannot be deducted from the investment tax amount, and therefore, the above corporate tax amount deducted by the plaintiff should be collected additionally.

On the other hand, a significant portion of the leased articles of this case was introduced directly from a foreign country to the plaintiff through a financial lease agreement with the non-party 1 corporation for the necessity of the plaintiff from the beginning, so this part of the leased articles cannot be deemed used goods, and since the remainder of the leased articles of this case was originally used by the non-party 1 corporation after delivery under the financial lease agreement and was used for the plaintiff's production, etc., it can be deemed used goods. However, in this case, the part purchased by the non-party 1 corporation among the leased articles of this case and its paid amount, and there is no evidence to determine the specific collection amount, and there is no specific assertion or proof by the defendant as to this, the part to be collected from each corporate tax amount deducted by the plaintiff cannot be calculated. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal against it is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Sung Pung-sung(Presiding Judge)