성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1,4,5,6,8,9호증, 갑 제7호증의 1,2, 을 제1호증의 1 내지, 을 제2호증, 을 제4호증의 1,2의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고는 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 소재 ㅇㅇ시농수산물도매시장 중 청과시장 서편구역의 청소 및 쓰레기수거용역(이하 이 사건 용역이라 한다)사업을 영위하기 위하여 설립되어 1985.8.13.그 설립등기를 마친 법인으로서, 원래 이 사건 용역업무를 소외 ㅇㅇ시 농수산물도매시장관리공사로부터 낙찰받은 소외 ㅇㅇ용역주식회사를 대신하여 1985.9.1.부터 이 사건 용역업무를 수행하여 오다가, 이 사건 용역권을 소외 ㅇㅇ산업주식회사에 양도하여 1986.2.17.부터 같은해 5.10.까지 양도대금 126,000,000원을 수령하였으나, 원고는 1985 사업연도와 1986 사업연도의 법인의 과세표준과 세액을 신고하지 아니하자, 피고는 이 사건 용역권 양도로 인한 소득을 원고법인의 대표이사인 임ㅇㅇ의 개인소득으로 보고 1990.9.1.동인에게 양도소득세 금53,880,000원 및 방위세 금10,776,000원을 부과고지 하였다가, 위 임ㅇㅇ의 심사청구에 대하여 1990.12.7. 국세청장으로부터 위 임ㅇㅇ에 대한 위 부과처분을 재조사하라는 결정이 나오자 1991.1.경 위 임ㅇㅇ에 대한 위 부과처분을 취소하고 1992.2.1. 원고에 대하여 1986 사업연도 법인세 및 방위세를 청구취지기재와 같이 부과고지하는 이 사건 부과처분을 한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition and the related Acts and subordinate statutes. The plaintiff first paid a large amount of expenses without any revenue, and the plaintiff incurred a loss equivalent to the same amount of losses during the business year 1985. The business year 1986, which was the profit of 126,00,000 won of the service right transfer price of 127,626,850 won after deducting 18,373,150 won of the value of the asset transfer of cleaning vehicles, etc. of 126,373,000 won of the service right transfer price of this case. The plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case was unlawful on the premise that the amount of losses was 51,926,276 won of the total amount of 1986 business year, but the plaintiff did not have any income of 55,70,574 won of the above business year under Article 8 (1) 1 of the Corporate Tax Act.

Article 8 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 26, 198) provides that the tax base of income for each business year of a domestic corporation shall be the amount calculated by deducting in sequence the income falling under each of the following subparagraphs within the scope of income for each business year. subparagraph 1 provides that losses incurred during the business year starting within 3 years prior to the beginning date of each business year shall not be deducted in accordance with the income or tax base of each subsequent business year, and Article 9 (4) of the same Act provides that the total amount of losses that falls or comes or comes under the business year of a domestic corporation exceeds the total amount of income which falls or comes under the business year of the corporation or comes under the current business year, and Article 8 (1) of the same Act provides that a domestic corporation liable to pay taxes shall return the tax base and amount of income for each business year to the corporation in accordance with the above provisions of Article 8 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act, which provides that the tax base of the corporation concerned shall not be deducted in accordance with the above provisions of Article 9 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act.

In other words, the plaintiff had received the accounting books of the plaintiff corporation around January 1, 1991, which is the transfer of the disposition of this case, so it did not reach this although it was possible to calculate the corporate tax base on the income for the 1985 business year of the plaintiff corporation and to determine the deficit for the 1985 business year. Even if the right to impose corporate tax on the income for the 1985 business year of the plaintiff corporation at the time of the disposition of this case cannot be exercised for the expiration of the exclusion period, the above deficit is due to the defendant's intentional and negligent act, and even if the exclusion period of corporate tax imposition is expired, the above deficit cannot be deducted, even if the corporate tax can not be imposed on the corporate tax, and the reasons of the plaintiff's principal cannot be said to have reported the corporate tax base on the income for the 1985 business year of the plaintiff corporation. Thus, even if the tax office received the accounting books of the plaintiff corporation without such report, it cannot be asserted that the tax base for the 1985 business year of the plaintiff corporation cannot be assessed.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the premise that the defendant's disposition of this case is illegal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party as per Disposition.