The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or each of the statements in Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 3-1, 4, 5 (the same shall apply to evidence 18, 19, 5) and Gap evidence 14, 15-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 5, 20-3 through 6, Eul evidence 20-3 through 6, and Eul evidence 25-25, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

A. On May 9, 1988, the non-party ○ Mutual Savings and Finance Company (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Mutual Savings and Finance Company”) transferred to the non-party ○○ Mutual Savings and Finance Company (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Mutual Savings and Finance Company”) according to the decision of the Minister of Finance and Economy pursuant to Article 23-8 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Act.

B. The Plaintiff, from around 1983 to September 19, 1987, was in office as the president of ○○ safe, and operated it according to his/her own intent, and managed part of customer deposits without being included in the account book of ○○○ safe, and by keeping them in the confidential account book.

C. In determining the tax base for correcting corporate tax for the above ○○ safe for 1987 (from July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987) and 198 (from July 1, 1987 to June 30, 198) of the above ○○○○○○ safe for 1987, the head of the above ○○○○○○○○○ Tax Office shall include the amount of KRW 13,216,873,590, excluding the amount of KRW 51,168,879,00 and the amount of KRW 794,00,000 for 198,000 for 197,000 won for 198,000 won for 197,00 won for 196,00 won for 30,000 won for 198,000 won for 196,000 won for 18,00 won for 186,086.

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

First, since the above ○○○○ safe was established by the Plaintiff’s ○○ Kim Jong-sik, the Plaintiff’s non-party 1, 290,000 won of the bill discounted from January 1, 1982 to March 1, 1982, but the non-party 4,290,00 won of the bill was defaulted and the non-party 1, 300 won of the deposit was continuously increased due to the non-party 4,00 won of the non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s funds.

Second, the above Kim Jong-type was actually in operation as the whole business of the above ○○○○○○ safe and actually engaged in off-the-counter transactions, and the plaintiff left large debt and was involved in the business to seek the above safe, and the plaintiff was directly in operation since October 1985. However, although the plaintiff was involved in the business for the management of assets outside of the above safe, it is not the representative director or director, but the plaintiff is not the representative of the bonus disposal stipulated in Article 94-2 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

Third, the Constitutional Court decided unconstitutionality of Article 32(5) of the Corporate Tax Act, which is a legal basis for the imposition of the income tax of this case on November 30, 1995. Article 94-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the kinds of income subject to taxation and the delegation order requiring specific and individual authorization of the law, and Article 32(5) of the Corporate Tax Act other than the above Article 32(5) of the Corporate Tax Act does not have any ground for delegation of the above Enforcement Decree. Thus, even if the above non-deposit deposit was out of the company due to the above decision of unconstitutionality, the above non-deposit deposit becomes null and void due to the above decision of unconstitutionality, and thus, the disposition of this case by applying the above provision to the non-discharge portion is unlawful.

Fourth, even if the plaintiff unfairly appropriated the corporation's money and reverted to the plaintiff, it cannot be deemed as earned income since the public funds which are not in a quid pro quo relationship with the labor. Further, the economic profit under Article 25 (1) 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which provides the money and goods which are not considered as wages, dividends or donations, which are the economic profit received from the corporation due to the special relation, is provided as other income under Article 25 (1) 12 of the Income Tax Act, is provided as the economic profit under Article 25 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act other than the dividends and loans disposed of by the corporation under the Corporate Tax Act or the government in determining and correcting the amount of the corporation's income under the Corporate Tax Act, which is provided as a source of income for the use of the corporation's assets or an individual's business free of charge or at low price, and thus, it is unlawful for the plaintiff to dispose of the money in this case.

Fifth, as the above decision of the Minister of Finance and Economy’s transfer of business was practically made through the transfer of the bonds, debts, and all assets of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Fund’s transfer of a contract, the liability to pay income tax accrued from the disposition of this case should be borne by the said ○○○○○ Fund

Sixth, the plaintiff does not have a special relationship with the above credit cooperative and the investor, and the above amount leaked by the plaintiff does not fall under the case of lending money without compensation or at a low interest rate, so it cannot be calculated as interest.

3. Relevant statutes;

(1) Article 9(1) of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4020, Dec. 26, 1988; hereinafter the same) provides that income of a domestic corporation for each business year shall be the amount obtained by deducting the total amount of losses which falls or will fall or will fall under the business year from the total amount of gross income which falls or will fall under the business year, and Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that the amount of gross income refers to the amount of profits generated from transactions that increase the net assets of the corporation except as provided in capital or financing and this Act.

(2) In addition, Article 32 (1) of the same Act provides that the government shall determine the tax base and amount of corporate tax on income for each business year of a domestic corporation when the domestic corporation fails to report pursuant to Article 26. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that where a domestic corporation which has reported pursuant to Article 26 falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the government shall rectify the tax base and amount of corporate tax on income for each business year of the concerned corporation, and shall correct the tax base and amount of corporate tax on income for each business year of the concerned corporation,

In addition, Article 26(5) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the disposal of the amount to be included in gross income shall be made under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree in filing a report on the corporate tax base under Article 26(1) through (4).

(3) On the other hand, Article 94-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the disposal of the amount to be included in the calculation of earnings shall be made according to the following provisions, while the disposal of the amount included in the calculation of earnings under subparagraph 1 shall be made pursuant to Article 32(1) through (4) of the Act, where it is obvious that the amount included in the calculation of earnings under subparagraph 1 has leaked out of the company, and where the person who belongs to item (b) is an employee (including an officer), the disposal shall be made as a bonus to

(4) Article 4 (1) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4163 of Dec. 30, 1989; hereinafter the same) provides that the income of a resident shall be classified as follows. Article 4 (1) of the Income Tax Act provides that the income of a resident is calculated by adding the interest income, dividend income, real estate income, business income, labor income and other income generated in the current year as global income. Article 4 (1) 1 provides that retirement income, transfer income under subparagraph 2,

(5) Article 21 (1) of the Income Tax Act provides that earned income shall be any of the following income generated during the current year. Article 21 (1) of the Act provides that salary, salary, remuneration, annual allowance, bonus, allowance, and other benefits of a similar nature that are received from the provision of labor under subparagraph 1 (a) shall be paid to the Class A earned income; (b) income that is received as bonus by a general meeting of stockholders of a corporation or by a resolution of a similar deliberative organ; and (c) the amount that is disposed of as bonus under the Corporate Tax Act shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree; and (5) Article 43 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12509, Aug. 25, 198) provides that matters necessary for the scope of earned income shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree; and (5) Article 21 (5) of the Act provides that the scope of earned income under subparagraph 1 includes the amount falling under any of the following subparagraphs; and (3) it is unclear that it is used for a business.

(6) Article 25(1) of the Income Tax Act provides that other income shall be enumerated as follows, except interest income, dividend income, real estate income, business income, labor income, retirement income, transfer income, and forestry income. Article 12 of the Income Tax Act provides that a person having a special relationship with a resident, non-resident, or corporation receives money and valuables not considered as wages, dividends, or donations from the resident, non-resident, or corporation due to such special relationship, and Article 49(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the economic benefits provided by Article 25(1)12 of the Corporate Tax Act shall be the amount of the corporation's income under the Corporate Tax Act or the assets provided as the source of income by the corporation's assets or private business other than those disposed of by the government when it reports the amount of the corporation's income under the Corporate Tax Act or determines and revises the amount of the corporation's income without compensation or at a low price.

(7) Meanwhile, Article 20 of the Corporate Tax Act provides that where the Government deems that the calculation of the income amount of a domestic corporation has unjustly reduced the tax burden on the corporation's income in transactions with a person with a special relationship as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the Government may calculate the income amount for each business year of the corporation notwithstanding the calculation of the income amount of the corporation. Article 46 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "any person with a special relationship under Article 20 of the same Act" refers to a person with a relationship under each of the following subparagraphs. subparagraph 1 provides that "any person with a special relationship" refers to such person and his relatives, corporations, or investors under subparagraph 2, and subparagraph 2 provides that "the case where it is deemed that the tax burden has been reduced unreasonably in accordance with Article 20 of the Act means any case falling under one of the following subparagraphs, and subparagraph 7 provides that "the amount equivalent to the interest rate for loans or other assets shall be included in the calculation of the income amount for the current account of loans in excess of the interest rate per month prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy.

(8) Article 8(1) of the Income Tax Act provides that the income tax shall be levied on the amount of income for one year from January 1 to December 31. Article 28(1) of the same Act provides that the calculation of the total amount of income for each resident’s income shall be based on the total amount received or received during the current year. Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that matters necessary for the scope, calculation or final determination of the amount received or received in the calculation of the total amount of income shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 57(9) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the receipt date of the total amount of income for other income shall be the

4. Determination on the legality of the instant disposition

(a) Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not in dispute between the parties, evidence 3 through 12, 16, 20, evidence 9-3 through 19, evidence 10, evidence 12, evidence 15-1, evidence 17, evidence 19, evidence 7-1 through 28, evidence 8-2, evidence 2-1, evidence 3-2, evidence 3-1 through 6-1, evidence 3-2, evidence 2-1, evidence 5-2, evidence 3-1, evidence 3-2, evidence 5-1, evidence 2-1, evidence 3-2, evidence 2-1, evidence 3-2, evidence 2-1, evidence 2-1, evidence 3-2, evidence 2-1, evidence 3-2, evidence 5-1, evidence 2-1, evidence 3-2, evidence 2-1, evidence 3-2, evidence 2-1, evidence 3-2, evidence 2-1, evidence 2-2, evidence 3-1, evidence 2-2

(1) On September 29, 1970, the Plaintiff established ○ Finance Co., Ltd. for the purpose of the fund lending business of the Young-si, the purpose of the Young-si’s goods purchase and sales intermediation business, etc., and was appointed as the representative director on January 31, 1971, but Nonparty ○nam, who was his own director, resigned from office and was the representative director on January 31, 1971, but the actual management was carried out by the Plaintiff and the director of the above company. On December 23, 1972, the above company’s trade name was changed to ○○ Mutual-Aid Company, the purpose was changed to ○○ Mutual-Aid Company, the mutual credit fraternity business, the credit installment business, etc.

(2) During the period from January 1, 1982 to March 3 of the same year, when operating the above ○○○○ safe, the above ○○○○○○ had a discount of the total face value of KRW 4,290,000,000, and had the Nonparty ○○○○○ Co., Ltd. continued to engage in extra transactions in order to compensate for losses caused by the occurrence of default. Ultimately, the excessive discount of the bill was problematic and resigned on April 30, 1983.

(3) Around that time, the Plaintiff, at the request of an executive director of the ○○○○ safe’s office, returned to his work and, in fact, the representative director was operating the ○○○○ safe and opened the ○○○○○ safe, free to deposit and deposited as installment savings deposits with 9% or 8.5% of the annual interest rate applicable to the borrowed deposits, the withdrawal of which is limited for a certain period of time, shall be paid without tax deduction. In addition, even if the Plaintiff deposits the 13% or 12.5% interest of the annual interest rate applicable to the borrowed deposits, the withdrawal of which is limited for a certain period of time, is to be paid without tax deduction. In addition, the Plaintiff, at the request of the executive director of the ○○○○○ safe’s office, assigned a serial number separate from the serial number of the 1,000 unit of passbook to be granted to the ordinary customer deposits deposited through the ○○ employee, entered the deposited passbook into the bank’

(4) The Plaintiff used the funds equivalent to the estimated amount of withdrawal of deposits from the passbook deposited with the above non-deposit deposit account to pay the principal and interest of the depositor with the maturity of the withdrawal from the deposit account and with the maturity of the maturity of the deposit account or with the termination of the deposit account. On the other hand, the Plaintiff used the funds for the management of deposits from the business members and for the repayment of the principal and interest on deposits from one side transaction conducted by the previous Kim ○-type, the former representative, to appropriate the expenses for the management of deposits from the deposit account and the payment of the principal and interest on deposits

(5) The Plaintiff purchased the real estate listed in the table 15 No. 15 of the attached table 2 of the attached table No. 15 in the name of the above ○○○ safe (which seems not to have been recorded in the assets for accounting purposes of the ○○○ safe), other than the real estate listed in the attached table No. 1 through 14, and the real estate listed in the same table No. 1 through 114, 114, 00 ○○○○○○-dong 28, ○○○○○-dong 28, ○○○○○○-dong dong 28, 114, and 28-dong ○○○○-dong 28,114, and the sum used as purchase price for each land under the name of the above ○○○ ○○ Do dong 15,315,000,000). The Plaintiff used the above ○ ○ ○ dong 28,50 million.

(6) As a result of an audit of ○○○ Depository on September 1987, the Minister of Finance and Economy revealed that the above act of raising foreign deposits was discovered, and thus, the Minister of Finance and Economy issued an order for business and property management pursuant to Article 23-2 of the Mutual Saving and Finance Act (amended by December 19, 195) by deeming that the management and property status of ○○ Depository might be unsound and detrimental to the public interest. Then, even though the above ○○ Depository ordered the transfer of contracts to the above ○○ Depository, it did not reach an agreement on the transfer of contracts on May 10, 198, the date of the contract transfer was April 16, 198. At the same time, the Minister of Finance and Economy decided to transfer contracts with the above ○○ Depository on April 16, 198, and at the same time revoked the business license for ○○ Depository on September 23, 1987.

(7) As a result, the joint management body of the Credit Management Fund confirms that the Plaintiff did not have any assets created through the above side transactions at all, the joint management body of the Credit Management Fund came to reach KRW 63,920,214,651 as a result of the verification process, such as receiving reports from the above side depositors for the payment of the compensation for deposits that the said side transactions could not be repaid to the depositor.

(8) The real estate listed in the table 1 to 15, among the real estate purchased by the Plaintiff with the above overseas deposits, was recovered from the above ○○○○○○ Depository as indicated in the attached list 2.1 to 15.

(9) In determining the tax base for rectifying corporate tax in 1987 and 1988 of the above ○○○○○ Fund, the director of the above tax office included the provisional payment other than the assessed value of assets other than the recovered real estate among the customer deposits investigated as useful by the plaintiff in gross income in 1988, and the interest rate recognized for the value of the above non-party real estate in 1987 and 1988 was included in gross income for the above two business years, and disposed of as bonus to the plaintiff who is the chairperson of the tax office. The above provisional payment was disposed of as bonus for the representative director until the special relation is extinguished, and the provisional payment was disposed as bonus for the representative director by calculating the interest rate recognized for the provisional payment until the special relation is extinguished (which was based on the established rule of the National Tax Service established on the date when the special relation is extinguished).

(10) The Defendant rendered the instant disposition on March 10, 1993 on the basis of the above bonus disposition.

B. Determination

(1) The effects of Article 94-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

Article 32(5) of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 94Hun-Ba32, Nov. 30, 1995; Article 32(5) of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1994; hereinafter referred to as "the Act") provides for the taxation requirements related to the disposition of income falling under the basic matters pertaining to the rights and obligations of the citizens, and provides for any criteria, and thus comprehensively delegated such provisions to the Presidential Decree, which is subordinate statutes, and thus, is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Article 94-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides for the type of income subject to taxation and the restriction on delegated legislation, and it constitutes a delegation order requiring specific and individual rights of taxation. In addition to Article 32(5) of the Corporate Tax Act, it is possible to find the grounds for delegation to the above Enforcement Decree under the Act, and thus, Article 94-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da19797, supra, which does not affect the establishment of a new statute.

Therefore, since the above provision of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act cannot be the basis for the imposition of income tax in this case, the imposition of income tax in this case is illegal in that point.

(2) Whether the instant disposition of imposing income tax based on the Income Tax Act is legitimate

(A) Changes in the reasons for the disposition

The subject matter of a taxation revocation lawsuit is the objective existence of a legitimate tax base and tax amount in the imposition disposition on each taxable unit, which is distinguished from the tax item and the taxable period (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu216, Mar. 25, 1986). The tax authority may submit new data that can support the legitimacy of the tax base and tax amount recognized in the relevant disposition, or exchange and change the reasons to the extent that the identity of the disposition is maintained, even if the lawsuit is pending, and it does not necessarily have to be able to determine the legality of the disposition or claim only the reasons for the disposition by only the data at the time of the disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu47, Oct. 24, 1997; Supreme Court Decision 97Nu2429, Nov. 14, 1997; Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8307, Dec. 26, 1997; Supreme Court Decision 2005Nu475, Nov. 4, 1997).

(B) The propriety of the disposition against the unclaimed portion of the overseas deposits

① Even though the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act on domestic affairs do not constitute the basis of the disposition imposing the income tax in this case, the deposit in each business year was in fact discharged from the company and reverted to the Plaintiff, the actual representative of ○○○○ safe, which is a temporary salary paid in compensation for work as prescribed in Article 21(1)1 (a) of the Income Tax Act. Even if this does not so, the Defendant asserts that the disposition in this case is legitimate as a result, because it constitutes an income under Article 25(1)12 of the Income Tax Act, which stipulates money and valuables not considered as a salary, dividend or donation, which a person with a special relationship with the corporation, received from the corporation due to the special relationship, as other income, as it constitutes an income under Article 25(1)12 of the Income Tax Act, which stipulates money and valuables not considered as a salary, dividend or donation as other income.

② Therefore, according to the above facts, the Plaintiff, as the actual manager of the above ○○○ Savings Depository, prepared and managed a secret account on its own under his own control, and repaid the principal and interest of the non-deposit funds out of the funds. The Plaintiff appropriated funds for the payment of deposit money to business employees, expenses for managing non-deposit deposits such as secret passbook production, etc., and repayment of principal and interest on the non-deposit transactions such as the above Kim○ branch, etc. Meanwhile, if it is necessary to use the funds for acquiring profits from the resale of real estate outside of the methods of operating the surplus funds such as deposit, purchase of securities, mutual credit guarantee, deposit with the fund management agency under Article 18 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act, it should be deemed that the actual manager of the mutual savings and finance company used the funds created out of the non-deposit account without keeping the money deposited in the mutual savings and finance company in the corporate account, and entered the money deposited in the non-deposit account in the non-deposit account as well as the funds deposited in the non-deposit account to the Plaintiff.

③ As such, KRW 63,920,214,651, which was revealed to have not been returned out of the deposits administered by the Plaintiff, shall be deemed to have the nature of the provisional payment as a loan for funds unrelated to the business of the pertinent juristic person. It shall not be deemed that the obligation to return the provisional payment owed by a specially related person to a juristic person is attributed to the Plaintiff as earned income, such as bonus, etc. from a person who was a immediately related person from that time on the ground that the provisional payment obligation is extinguished, and that the provisional payment obligation is not immediately redeemed, and it shall not be deemed that it belongs to the Plaintiff from that time on the ground that the above portion remains as the obligation to return the provisional payment obligation. As such, the Defendant’s income belonging to the Plaintiff on the ground that the above portion remains as the obligation to return the provisional payment obligation, which is 13,216,873,590 won from the above amount and the total face value of securities collected from the foreign assets, and it shall not be deemed that the Plaintiff received the deposit from the said financial institution as collateral.

In addition, Article 49 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which provides for other income, provides for the economic benefits under Article 25 (1) 12 of the Act, refers to the profits that an individual gains by using an asset, which is the source of income of a corporation, free of charge or at a low price, and is the fee for use, which shall be paid normally due to the use of the asset. This refers to the profits equivalent to the fee for the use of the asset for business, which is provided for free use, and it cannot be said that it refers to the profits that accrue from the possession of the asset for business, which is provided for free use. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the portion of the non-claimed deposit out

④ In addition, the difference between the amount received on the balance sheet and the actual inspection amount, and the amount appropriated for the processing of the land and building price (land: 61,642,240 won, building: 113,47,760 won, building: 113,47,760 won) and the amount of business transfer loss to 619,202,190 won, the part of the disposition in this case, which is deemed unlawful, as earned income of the Plaintiff, shall be deemed as the portion of the disposition in this case, which is deemed to have been reverted to the Plaintiff, as it was unlawful, because there is no evidence to acknowledge that the amount of bonus disposal to the Plaintiff, who was detained on September 23, 1987, was actually reverted to the income, such as bonus in 1988, starting from January 1, 1988.

(C) The propriety of the disposition on the amount equivalent to the interest accrued on the return of the non-deposit

① However, according to the above, the above deposit managed by the plaintiff outside of Korea is a cash which must have been entered into a credit safe's profit and is defined as the assets of the ○○ safe. According to the provisions of Article 20, Article 46 (1), and Article 47 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, the investors, their relatives, and their employees are specially related to the wrongful calculation division. Thus, the plaintiff is a de facto representative of the above ○○ safe, who works for the above ○ safe, and thus, is an employee in a special relationship with the above ○○ safe. Thus, the above ○○ safe is a person in a special relationship with the above ○ safe. In this case, when the money was lent free of charge or at a low interest rate under Article 46 (2) 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, the loan refers to all the amount of money loaned to the investors who are not directly related to the business of

② With respect to the appraisal value of the real estate acquired by the Plaintiff using the above non-deposit deposits from ○○ safe, among non-performing assets recovered from the above non-performing assets, the head of ○○ Tax Office shall calculate the amount of tax to June 15, 1988 as income for the period from July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987 the above ○○○ safe shall have an interest rate of 385,031,075 won (a value of real estate 1,22,55,152,00 x 1/365 x 11.5 percent), the amount of tax imposed on the above non-performing assets acquired by the Plaintiff from ○○○ safe shall be calculated as income for the period from 1987 to 30 June 15, 198; the Defendant shall not be deemed to have an interest rate of tax imposed on the above non-performing assets x 365 percent of the amount of tax imposed on the Plaintiff’s bonus income x 1636.

However, even if the above recognized person cannot be seen as the plaintiff's earned income, since it constitutes other income stipulated in Article 25 (1) 12 of the Income Tax Act, it is alleged to the effect that taxation on this portion is justifiable, and since Article 49 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the economic benefit stipulated in Article 25 (1) 12 of the Corporate Tax Act is a corporation's income under the Corporate Tax Act or is provided for the corporation's assets or individual's business without compensation or at a low price, the individual's profit should be paid for the use of the assets. Since the above recognized person's income tax cannot be seen as a commercial bank's income, the above disposal of the amount should be calculated at a lower rate than the ordinary amount to be paid by the plaintiff's income tax, the amount equivalent to the above ○○○○ Fund's loan interest rate for the portion equivalent to the value of the real estate recovered as non-performing assets should be recognized as belonging to the plaintiff's other income. Thus, since the plaintiff's obligation to pay taxes to the above ○ Fund's own assets and other assets should be charged.

(D) The amount of lawful income tax

As seen earlier, it shall be deemed that the non-deposit deposits recorded and managed in the confidential account book were lent free of charge to the Plaintiff from the date of deposit. As such, the amount equivalent to the loan interest for the period from the deposit date to the date of return from the deposit date or to the date of return to the credit cooperative shall be deemed to be the Plaintiff’s other income. Since the Defendant calculated the amount recognized only for the non-deposit deposits returned and the amount equivalent thereto to the tax base of this case, and calculated the amount equivalent to the loan interest for the taxable year to which the non-deposit deposits accrued in this case were returned as other income, the amount of other income accrued in the year 1987 shall be deemed to be KRW 682,408,567, and the amount of other income accrued in the year 1988 shall be deemed to be KRW 400,907,533,00, the amount of income accrued in the defense account for the year 1987, the Defendant shall be deemed to have accrued to the Defendant’s tax base for the year 1985 years 1, and 3085 years 1.

Therefore, among the disposition of this case, the part of global income tax and defense tax belonging to the year 1988, which exceed the above legitimate tax amount is deemed to be illegal.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the part of the above political party tax amount and the part of the global income tax and the defense tax disposition belonging to the 1987 of the defendant's disposition of global income tax and the defense tax belonging to the 1988 of this case are legitimate, and the part in excess of the above justifiable tax amount among global income tax and the defense tax belonging to the 1988 of this case should be revoked as illegal. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of seeking revocation, and the part in excess of the above justifiable tax amount among global income tax and the defense tax belonging to the 1988 of this case shall be accepted as well as