Of the costs of appeal, the part arising from the plaintiff's appeal is assessed against the plaintiff, the part arising from the defendant's appeal is assessed against the defendant.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below established the following facts based on the following facts: (a) from May 1978 to August 20, 1981, the Plaintiff manufactured gold 68,100 gold stuffs (50 percentage 57,100,100 du 11,000 du 110,000 as listed in the attached Table 1 of the judgment below; (b) determined that the above gold galls produced by the Plaintiff using high gold gals from May 1978 to August 20, 1981, with the trade name of ○○○ in Seongdong-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) and Dobong-gu Seoul ( Address 2 omitted) and the Plaintiff’s residential area; and (c) determined that the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax and the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax under Article 1(9) (11) of the former Special Consumption Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3475 of Dec. 31, 1981) was lawful by the Enforcement Decree of the same case’s.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)