1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s inclusion of the amount of KRW 1,580,00,00 as a security deposit for the portion leased during the pertinent taxable period (hereinafter “the instant security deposit”) in the aggregate balance sheet submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the final return on the tax base of global income tax for the year 1991, was based on the calculation of the deemed rent for the instant security deposit and was included in the Plaintiff’s real estate income amount. The Defendant’s inclusion of the deemed rent for the instant security deposit in the calculation of the amount of the Plaintiff’s real estate income. The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s inclusion of the income of the said deemed rent for the instant real estate income was based on a field investigation method (amended by Act No. 4661 of Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 58(2) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13802 of Dec. 31, 1992). 192).

In light of the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to estimated taxation, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

2. Article 29 (1) of the former Income Tax Act provides that "where the amount of income generated by a resident from a security deposit, deposit for lease on a deposit basis, or an amount of money similar thereto (excluding the amount appropriated for repayment of a loan related to a lease business) that he/she has leased real estate or real estate rights, etc. falls short of the amount calculated by multiplying the interest rate prescribed by Presidential Decree by the interest rate of financial institutions taking into account the deposit, etc., the amount calculated as prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be included in the gross amount of income in the calculation of the real estate income amount." Accordingly, Article 58 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "the calculation formula of the amount to be included in the gross amount of income" (a drop number of deposit deposits, etc. in the relevant taxable period £­ drop number of the amount of redemption after the commencement of a lease business) ¡¿ (a

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that only 431,707,000 won (350,700,707,000 won + 81,707,000 won for the construction cost of the leased portion among the buildings of this case and the construction cost of the additional (2nd class building and parking lot facilities) is 1,580,000 won for the interest case, and only 431,707,000 won (350,000,000 +81,707,000 +) which is the total construction cost of the above construction cost is appropriated or appropriated for the repayment of the principal for the repayment of the loan principal. In light of the records and related Acts and subordinate statutes, the court below determined that the amount excluded from the calculation of the reasonable rent among the rental deposit of this case is only 431,707,000 won, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

The argument in the grounds of appeal further includes not only the amount of principal of the loan but also the amount of repayment of interest or overdue interest on the loan, which is excluded from the amount of redemption of the loan which is subject to calculation of deemed rent. However, according to the above formula as stipulated in the related Acts and subordinate statutes, the amount of redemption of the loan is calculated based on the amount calculated by deducting the amount of fixed deposit interest and the amount equivalent to the amount of redemption of the loan from the amount equivalent to the amount of fixed deposit interest on the security deposit, etc., so it shall be reasonable to interpret that the above security deposit refers to the amount of redemption of the principal,

The argument in the grounds of appeal is further that the construction cost of the building of this case should be deducted from the rental deposit subject to calculation of deemed rent, such as the cost paid by the plaintiff as its own funds, for the construction of the building of this case. However, this is not only a new argument that has not been made in the original judgment but also a new argument that has not been made in the original judgment, and since the total construction cost of this case exceeds KRW 431,707,000 as seen earlier, there is no construction cost to be deducted from the calculation of deemed rent

This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)