The following facts may be acknowledged in the absence of dispute between the parties or in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 2-1, 2, and 3.

A. The Plaintiff, a person operating ○ Steel Co., Ltd. on or around May 1996, when filing a final return on global income tax for 1,171,440,734 won, subtracting 1,170,477 won from the total income amount of 1,381,257 won, and the total amount of 20,323,60 won received from Nonparty ○○ Steel Co., Ltd., calculated 21,704,857 won including 20,704,857 won in total, 3,0860 won in total, 205 won in total as stated in the separate sheet of calculation, 3,086,711 won in total, 2,230,850 won in total, 46,705 won in total as stated in the above tax base return on global income amount, and 47,705 won in addition to the above tax base return on global income amount.

B. As a result of an on-site investigation of the Plaintiff’s business income from the management of the said ○○ Steel, the Defendant indicated that the amount of KRW 65,319,160, out of the total amount included in the necessary expenses, was the sales cost when determining the global income tax for 1994 and excluded this amount from the necessary expenses. The Defendant calculated the amount of the business income as KRW 66,70,417 [1,171,440,734- Necessary expense return amount of KRW 1,170,059,477- Necessary expense return amount of KRW 65,319,160] based on this, and calculated the amount of the global income, the amount of the global income, the amount of the total determined tax amount, the amount of the global income, the amount of the global income, and the amount of the global income tax imposed on the Plaintiff on August 1, 1996 less the amount of the global income tax amount as KRW 85,34,017,350,39.

2. Whether the instant taxation disposition is legitimate

A. The parties' assertion

On May 31, 1995, the plaintiff sold 56,621,102 won of the total amount of the goods to the non-party company ○ Metal Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the non-party company) and delivered two promissory notes with the price in the same amount as that of the non-party company, but the non-party company discontinued its business on August 4 of the same year, and the non-party company discontinued its business on August 20 of the same year. The non-party company discontinued its business on the non-party company's remaining property from August 1, 1995. The non-party company's claim for the non-party company's remaining property as of December 31, 1995 exceeds the appraised price as of July 24, 196, but the non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party-party company's non-party claim for the remaining bad debt amount as of 16.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 20 (2) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994) provides that the business income shall be the amount obtained by deducting the necessary expenses from the total income amount in the current year. Article 31 (1) provides that in calculating the business income, the amount to be included in the necessary expenses shall be the total amount corresponding to the total income amount in the current year. Article 31 (3) provides that necessary matters concerning the calculation of the necessary expenses shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 60 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994) provides that the necessary expenses corresponding to the total income amount in each year of real estate income and business income shall be the amount set forth in the following subparagraphs. Article 20 (3) provides that the bad debt shall be limited to cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs, and Article 31 (3) provides that when a debtor's bankruptcy, compulsory execution, execution or discontinuation of his/her business becomes impossible, or any other reason determined by Ordinance.

C. Facts

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of each of the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 8-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 9, 11, 12, Gap evidence No. 14-1, 2, 3, 15-1 through 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 5, and the whole purport of the pleadings, and there is no counter-proof.

(1) On May 31, 1995 and June 30, 1995, the Plaintiff sold 56,621,102 won in total of steel products to the non-party company, and as a result, issued one promissory note of KRW 42,03,50 on August 6, 1995 and one promissory note of KRW 14,617,580 on August 29, 1995 on the date of payment for the issuance of the non-party company, but each of the said promissory notes (hereinafter referred to as the “instant promissory notes”) was defaulted on August 4, 198 of the same year on the grounds of non-party company’s non-transaction.

(2) Meanwhile, the non-party company discontinued its operations from July 18 of the same year and closed its business on August 4 of the same year following the suspension of current account transactions with financial institutions on August 20 of the same year.

(3) The remaining properties of the non-party company were only real estate indicated in the separate sheet since its closure and factory machinery (hereinafter the remaining properties of this case). The second priority order of the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund, which caused 2.90 million won for the remaining properties, was established respectively. The decision to commence auction was made on August 3, 1995 at the request of the Ulsan District Court No. 95 other13625, and the remaining properties were 1,99,79,792,000 won (the point of time of time of partial machinery price) for the above 1,960 won for the 196th 6th 6th 9th 6th 9th 6th 6th 96th 96th 96th 96th 196th 96th 196th 96th 96th 196th 196th 196th 196th 196th 196th 196th 196th 3th 196th 196th 3rd 196.

D. Determination

In light of the purport of Article 60(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, bad debt included in the necessary expenses is limited to debt which is objectively confirmed in the year when the salt amount is calculated (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1418, Nov. 28, 1997). According to the above acknowledged facts, as of December 31, 1995, the end of the taxable period of this case, the non-party company did not own other property than the remaining property of this case, but did not hold the remaining property of this case, and the remaining property lasts the voluntary auction procedure, but the remaining property lasts the amount of debt with preferential right to payment such as secured debt and delinquent national tax reaches 2,269,60,944 won and more than the first lowest bid price of 1,99,792,000 won, and thus, it is clear that the plaintiff's claim against non-party company 1 was unlawful in calculating the amount of debt of this case under the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act of this case, and its remaining debt of this case 15 years should be objectively assessed.

(e) Justifiable tax amount;

If a reasonable tax amount is calculated based on the Plaintiff’s global income amount attributed to year 1995, which was calculated by adding the claim on the Promissory Notes of this case to necessary expenses, it shall be KRW 2,894,320, as stated in the due tax amount calculation sheet of the attached tax amount.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the taxation disposition of this case which exceeds 2,894,320 won is illegal. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the bearing of litigation costs.

May 20, 1998