[2] The case holding that where a corporation's discount issuance of bonds corrects errors in the inclusion of expenses in the calculation of expenses as the issue cost of bonds, the part of the redemption period already belongs to the business year for which the exclusion period of the right to impose national taxes has already passed, and it is unlawful to exclude the portion from new inclusion in deductible expenses

[2] The case holding that since the lapse of the exclusion period of the right to impose national tax on the bonds, it is unlawful that a corporation paid to a securities company at a discount of bonds from January 1, 1990 to 195, it was unlawful to include the remaining bonds acquisition fees in deductible expenses in deductible expenses in proportion to or equally after January 1, 1993, except for the portion already included in deductible expenses as the cost of issuing bonds for a period from 1990 to 192, which is not subject to the disposition of increase or decrease due to the lapse of the exclusion period of the right to impose national tax on the bonds

The court below, citing the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, asserted that the plaintiff's initial disposition of 36,785,690 won of corporate tax on March 18, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the initial disposition") was improper and requested to the National Tax Tribunal for adjudication seeking cancellation thereof. The National Tax Tribunal, from 1990 to 192, determined that the amount paid by the plaintiff to a securities company accepting bonds under the pretext of the difference between the interest rate of the bonds and the market interest rate of the bonds at discount (hereinafter referred to as "bonds acceptance fee") exceeds the original disposition of 90 won and thus, it was wrong to redeem the amount to the plaintiff at the issue price of the bonds even though it falls under the original disposition of 90 won of the bonds acceptance fee of 193. The court below determined that the remaining amount excluding the amount allocated at the discount of the bonds at the original disposition of 193 business year should be calculated as corporate tax after 1993, and that the amount should be calculated as losses for 196 years, 190.

In the case of corporate tax, which differs from the relevant laws and regulations and records, and if the business year differs from the different tax base, the disadvantage should be determined based on the total corporate tax amount for each business year, not on the basis of the total corporate tax amount for each business year, and there is a difference in corporate tax rate for each business year. In addition, the part of the disposition in this case concerning additional tax amount is separate from the disposition imposing corporate tax which is the principal tax, but the additional tax amount is also increased as the corporate tax base increases, and thus the increased portion above the initial disposition amount is null and void. In light of the legal principles, the above recognition and judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, found that the plaintiff paid the subscription fees for bonds to a securities company that underwritten bonds at a discount from January 1, 1990 to 195, and appropriated them as the subscription fees for bonds and appropriated them as the subscription fees for bonds. The subscription fees for bonds are not the subscription expenses for bonds, but the subscription fees for bonds at a discount in deductible expenses for the redemption period, and the defendant corrected the error that the plaintiff appropriated the subscription fees for bonds from 1993 to 1992 as the subscription fees for bonds from 1990 to 192, which were already appropriated as the subscription fees for bonds from 1990 to 192, which were already appropriated as the subscription fees for bonds at a discount for the total amount to be added to the subscription fees for bonds at a discount from 1990 to 195 to 190, and determined that the disposition of this case was unlawful to include the remaining amount as the subscription fees for bonds at a discount from 190 to 190,00, and its original appropriation of the amount of corporate tax as deductible expenses.

In light of the relevant laws and records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the exclusion period of the right to impose national taxes and the inclusion of corporate tax in deductible expenses, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Although the Defendant asserts that the initial disposition is effective if the initial disposition is invalidated, the initial disposition is deemed valid, but the initial disposition that was absorbed into the increased new disposition and extinguished is not valid. The disposition of this case is calculated on January 1, 1993, according to the decision of the National Tax Tribunal, and the Defendant notified the Defendant of the amount exceeding the initial return amount (excluding the amount notified at the initial disposition, as the amount of tax to be deducted), and the portion in excess of the initial disposition amount (i.e., the amount of tax to be deducted) violates the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change, and the remaining portion is unlawful in accordance with the above legal principles (the former or the initial disposition was appropriated as the cost of corporate bonds acquisition fees incurred from from 1990 to 192, and the remaining amount is unlawful in the judgment of the court below for a period of 90 years from the date of deducting the initial disposition of this case from the total amount of national tax imposition in deductible expenses for the same period as that of the new disposition of this case, which had already been revoked for 19 years from the period of excluding the increase in deductible expenses).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)