2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The claim for corporate tax of KRW 3,136,258,180 imposed by Defendant Republic of Korea on a mutual savings and finance company against the bankrupt company against the bankrupt company, and the additional claim for it and Jongno-gu corporate tax of KRW 282,263,230 imposed on July 10, 2004, it is confirmed that the claim for resident tax and additional claim for it are not an estate claim or bankruptcy claim for the bankrupt company against the mutual savings and finance company against the bankrupt company.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

A. A mutual savings and finance company for a stock company before bankruptcy (hereinafter “Korea Mutual savings and finance company”) conducted a revaluation of assets on the premise that the assets owned are listed pursuant to Article 56-2 of the former Tax Reduction and Exemption Control Act (amended by Act No. 3939, Nov. 28, 1987; Act No. 4285, Dec. 31, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply) which belongs to the business year 190 (from July 1, 1990 to June 30, 199), and filed a report on the revaluation of assets pursuant to Article 15 (1) 5 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4561, Jun. 11, 1993; hereinafter the same shall apply) and filed a report on the revaluation of assets pursuant to the Assets Revaluation Act for the business year 190; and on the premise that the asset revaluation of 190,090 won is not included in gross income pursuant to Article 15 (1) 5.

B. The Act on the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption and its Enforcement Decree, which provide for special cases concerning revaluation when a company is open to the public, have been amended several times thereafter, and the listing period of the stocks has been finally extended until December 31, 2003. The President of the Korea District Tax Office having jurisdiction over the location of the Korea Mutual Saving and Finance Company in December 31, 2003, notified the Korea Mutual Saving and Finance Company in accordance with Article 23(1) of the Addenda of the former Tax Reduction and Exemption Control Act (amended by Act No. 4285, Dec. 31, 1990) of the increase in the revaluation amount, not the revaluation amount under the Assets Revaluation Act, to include the difference in profit in the calculation of the corporate tax base and the amount of tax for the business year 1990 and to include it in the calculation of the corporate tax base and the amount of tax on January 16, 2004 (additional tax, additional tax, corporate tax, corporate tax amount 1,939,50,90).

C. In addition, on July 10, 2004, the head of Jongno-gu made a decision of correction to increase the resident tax amount of 282,263,230 won (including additional tax of 47,043,870 won) to be corporate tax as the tax base for the mutual savings and finance company of Jongno-gu with the corporate tax amount as of July 10, 2004, and notified it (hereinafter referred to as the "decision of imposition of resident tax of this case" which was imposed by the head of Jongno-gu on July 10, 204, and the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of this case and the disposition of imposition of resident tax

D. Meanwhile, the Korea Mutual Savings and Finance Company was dissolved pursuant to Article 21 subparagraph 1 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act on October 11, 1999, and was declared bankrupt on June 26, 200, Seoul Central District Court No. 2000Ha47, and the Plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition: Evidence of No. 5, Evidence No. 1 to No. 6, Evidence No. 1 to No. 2, Na1 and 2 (including paper numbers), All purport of oral argument]

2. The plaintiff's assertion on the ground of claim

The plaintiff asserts as follows as the cause of the claim of this case.

A. Article 23(1) of the Addenda of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4285, Dec. 31, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply in this paragraph) and Article 138 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17458, Dec. 31, 2001); the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4666, Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4666, Jan. 1, 1994); therefore, Article 23(1) of the Addenda of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4285, Dec. 31, 199; hereinafter the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act) has no effect. Thus, each of the above disposition of tax exemption is null and void due to its violation of the principle of no taxation without law.

B. Since Article 23 of the Addenda to the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act does not take effect from January 1, 1994, the starting date in which the Defendant Republic of Korea can impose corporate tax by including the revaluation spread of the Korea Mutual Saving and Finance Company in the profits from the profits is December 31, 1993, and each of the instant dispositions taken after five years from the above point of time imposed the exclusion period.

C. The obligation to pay the corporate tax and resident tax of this case has already been established on July 1, 1990, which was the date of asset revaluation, or on September 25, 1990, which was the date of payment of corporate tax, and thus, each disposition of this case is a disposition of taxation after the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the tax

D. Article 23(1) of the Addenda of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, which provides for special cases concerning revaluation when a company is open to the public, shall be interpreted to be limited to cases where stocks are not listed on the Korea Stock Exchange within the period prescribed by the Presidential Decree due to reasons attributable to taxpayers. However, the Korea Mutual Saving and Finance Company (hereinafter “Korea Mutual Savings and Finance Company”) fails to list stocks inevitably due to the decision of withdrawal made as part of restructuring to a financial institution unilaterally performed by the government in order to overcome the MF foreign exchange crisis, and thus, the Korea Mutual Savings and Finance Company (hereinafter “Korea Mutual Savings and Finance Company”) does not fall

E. Even if each of the dispositions of this case in household affairs does not automatically become null and void, or the exclusion period or extinctive prescription has not been completed, a taxation claim based on each of the dispositions of this case does not constitute an estate claim or a bankruptcy claim under Article 38 subparagraph 2 of the former Bankruptcy Act (amended by Act No. 7428, Mar. 31, 2005; hereinafter the same shall apply), since the taxation claim based on each of the dispositions of this case is a taxation claim arising from a cause after the declaration of bankruptcy,

F. Even if the Defendants’ taxation claims pursuant to each of the instant dispositions constitute estate claims or bankruptcy claims, such scope shall be deemed limited to the corporate tax and the principal resident tax excluding the additional tax, and the additional claim due to the tax delinquency shall also be deemed not to constitute estate claims or bankruptcy claims.

3. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Judgment of party members

A. Determination as to the assertion that each of the instant dispositions violates the principle of no taxation without law and thus becomes void as a matter of course

(1) The former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 3939 of Nov. 28, 1987) (amended by Act No. 4285 of Dec. 31, 1990) intends to enable a corporation to conduct revaluation under the Assets Revaluation Act even if it fails to meet the revaluation requirements under the Assets Revaluation Act in order to support the sound development of the capital market through the expansion of supply of superior stocks, and newly establish Article 56-2 (hereinafter “former Article 56-2”) under Article 88 (1) of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 3939 of Nov. 28, 1987) and to list stocks to the Korea Stock Exchange for the first time under the provisions of Article 38 (1) of the Assets Revaluation Act (amended by Act No. 4285 of Dec. 31, 1990). However, a corporation, which intends to list its stocks to the Korea Stock Exchange within 2 years after the revaluation of its stocks, shall not be revaluated under Article 15 of the former Assets Revaluation Act.

After that, Article 56-2 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4285 of Dec. 31, 1990) was deleted and Article 23 of the Addenda to the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4285 of Dec. 31, 1990) was established. Paragraph (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13202 of Dec. 31, 1990) provides that "where a corporation which conducted revaluation under Article 56-2 of the previous Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act does not list its stocks within the period prescribed by Presidential Decree, the revaluation already conducted shall not be deemed revaluation under the Assets Revaluation Act, unless it has listed its stocks within the period prescribed by Presidential Decree" and Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "where a corporation which conducted revaluation cancels within the period prescribed by Presidential Decree No. 13284 of Dec. 28, 1993" as "the entire Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act No. 206.

Meanwhile, Article 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4666, Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter “former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act”) which was wholly amended by Act No. 4666, Jan. 1, 1994; Article 2 of the Addenda of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 1097, Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter “former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act”) provides no transitional provision as to the income tax and corporate tax from the taxable year beginning after this Act enters into force; however, even after the wholly amended Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act enters into force, the former Enforcement Decree of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 14084, Dec. 31, 1993); Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 10138, Jan. 196, 197, 1997)

(2) In the case of a partial amendment of a law, the transitional provisions in the Addenda of the previous law do not become null and void as a matter of course unless there is a separate provision that the amendment or deletion shall be made. However, in the case of a complete amendment of a law, the provisions in the Addenda and its transitional provisions shall be repealed as well as the previous rules. However, even in this case, if there are special circumstances to determine otherwise or to deem otherwise, such a provision shall not become null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du1168, Jul. 26, 2002, etc.). Therefore, even if a law wholly amended did not have any separate provision that the transitional provisions in the previous amendment shall continue to apply, if there are circumstances to deem that the transitional provisions shall continue to apply, the transitional provisions in the previous amendment shall not become null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du1168, Jul. 26, 2002). 202; whether there are such circumstances should be determined by comprehensively considering the legislative process and purport of the previous statutes, the legislative purport and overall amendment, and overall legislative structure, and whether there may become null and void.

(3) In light of the above legal principles, the provisions of the Addenda of this case were deleted by the former Article 56-2, which is a special provision on the asset revaluation, and the effect of the existing asset revaluation (Paragraph (1) at the time of listing or listing of the corporation, and the effect of cancellation of the asset revaluation (Paragraph (2) at the time of cancellation of the listing period), etc. In addition, even if the provisions of the Addenda of this case are not applied continuously in the wholly amended Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, it seems that the Special Act on the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption does not have any special provision on the asset revaluation (Article 56-2 of the Addenda of this case, which is the special provision on asset revaluation). If the effectiveness of the provisions of the Addenda of this case is lost as of January 1, 1994 due to the implementation of the wholly amended Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, it is difficult to view that the previous provision on the asset revaluation of this case would not be applied to the corporation whose asset revaluation had already been conducted within the time limit of the asset revaluation as of the previous Article 2 of the Assets Revaluation Act.

(4) Thus, the supplementary provision of this case is deemed to be "special circumstances" to be deemed to be not effective despite the enforcement of the wholly amended Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du19419, Nov. 27, 2008). Thus, each of the dispositions of this case based on the supplementary provision of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion that the supplementary provision of this case is invalid is without merit.

B. Determination on the exclusion Period Do and argument

Article 26-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 4561, Jun. 11, 1993; hereinafter the same) provides that the exclusion period of corporate tax shall be five years from the “the date on which it can be imposed” and Article 30-2(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415, Dec. 14, 1991; hereinafter the same) also provides that the exclusion period of local tax imposition shall be five years from the “the date on which it can be imposed”.

Meanwhile, according to Article 9(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act and Article 12(1)5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13195 of Dec. 31, 191), profits from voluntary evaluation of assets not under the Assets Revaluation Act are included in the income of the relevant corporation in calculating the income of the relevant corporation, while profits from voluntary evaluation of assets under the Assets Revaluation Act are not included in the gross income under Article 15(1)5 of the former Corporate Tax Act, but where a corporation which conducts asset revaluation under Article 56-2 fails to list its stocks by December 31, 2003, which is the “period determined by the Presidential Decree” under Article 1 of the Addenda of the former Corporate Tax Act, the date of revaluation should be included in the gross income. Therefore, even if the relevant corporation did not list its stocks before the date of arrival, it can be deemed 10 days to impose corporate tax for the pertinent business year without listing it.

Therefore, the disposition of imposition of the corporate tax of this case made on January 16, 2004 and the disposition of imposition of the resident tax of this case made on July 10, 2004 are apparent in fact that it was made within five years from January 1, 2004, the starting date of the exclusion period. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

C. Determination on the completion of extinctive prescription

Article 27(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides, “The right of the State to collect national taxes shall be extinguished if it is not exercised within five years from the time it is possible to exercise such right.” Article 48 of the former Local Tax Act provides, “The right of a local government to collect money collectible by the local government shall be extinguished by the prescription if it is not exercised for five years from the time it is possible to exercise such right.” Article 12-4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides, “if the Government determines the tax base and tax amount, the day following the due date for payment by the tax payment notice in the case where the government decides the notified tax base and tax amount.” As seen earlier, the day on which each of the dispositions of this case are permitted shall be January 1, 2004, and as long as each of the dispositions of this case was taken on January 16, 2004 and July 10, 2004, the starting date of calculating the extinctive prescription of the right to collect taxes shall be the day following the tax return or tax amount of tax payment notice.

D. Determination as to the assertion that there is no cause attributable to the failure to list shares

Article 1 (1) of the Addenda of this case only provides that "only in cases where stocks of the Korea Stock Exchange are not listed within the period prescribed by the Presidential Decree from the date of re-evaluation, it shall not be deemed re-evaluation under the Assets Revaluation Act," and does not provide that taxpayers' causes are attributable to the taxpayer as a premise for not listing stocks. Moreover, the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as not attributable to the mutual savings and finance company of the Korea Stock Exchange for the failure to list within the listing period. Thus, the Plaintiff's assertion also does not need to be examined further.

E. Determination as to whether a taxation claim based on the disposition of this case constitutes an estate claim

(1) Article 38 Subparag. 2 of the former Bankruptcy Act provides that “a claim that may be collected pursuant to the National Tax Collection Act or the example of collecting national taxes” as an estate claim, and the proviso provides that “a claim that may arise after a declaration of bankruptcy shall be limited to a claim that arises with respect to the bankrupt estate.” This provision provides that a tax claim that may arise after a declaration of bankruptcy shall be an original bankruptcy claim, or a claim that may arise before a declaration of bankruptcy shall be based on a political foundation claim to secure the collection of taxes. The issue of whether a cause arises before a declaration of bankruptcy is determined on the basis of whether a tax claim has been established because the taxation requirements prescribed by the Act have been met before the declaration of bankruptcy (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da7190

Meanwhile, the tax liability is legally constituted as a matter of course at the time when the taxation requirements under each tax law are satisfied. The Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the time when the liability for tax payment expires in accordance with the principle of fixed-term taxation; and that the time when the liability for tax payment of additional tax comes into existence shall be “when the liability for national tax to be added comes into existence” (Article 21(1)1 and 11); and that the Local Tax Act provides that the time when the liability for tax payment of additional tax comes into existence shall be “when the liability for tax payment of income tax and corporate tax that serves as the tax base comes into existence”; and that the time when the liability for tax payment of additional tax comes into existence” (Article 29(1)4 and 13).

(2) Furthermore, the amount of profit to be included in the gross income for each business year under the Corporate Tax Act is an increase in the net asset value generated during the pertinent business year, and its assets evaluation marginal profit also becomes one of the earnings to be included in the gross income. However, as the revaluation profit under the Assets Revaluation Act is particularly excluded from the gross income, if the revaluation cannot be deemed to have been conducted under the Assets Revaluation Act, the evaluation profit accrued from the revaluation should be included in the gross income as the value of assets increased during the pertinent business year (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1812 delivered on March 8, 194).

In the case of this case, the Korea Mutual Saving and Finance Company (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Mutual Savings and Finance Company") created evaluation marginal profits of assets meeting the taxation requirements under the Corporate Tax Act through asset revaluation in 1990, but such evaluation marginal profits in the process of tax adjustment were specially excluded from the inclusion of earnings within a certain period under the previous Article 56-2, which is a policy legislative provision for the promotion of corporate disclosure, on condition of listing within a certain period of time, and did not list by the closing date of the listing period, under Article 56-2 (1) of the Addenda of this case, the above revaluation cannot be viewed as the revaluation of assets under the Assets Revaluation Act, which is the value of assets increased retroactively during the pertinent business year as at the time of revaluation, and thus, the liability to pay the corporate tax of this case (including additional taxes) shall be deemed to have been constituted by fulfilling the taxation requirements under the Corporate Tax Act on June 30, 199, which is the expiration date of the 190 business year where revaluation occurs (this case's supplementary provision 2).

Therefore, the Defendants’ corporate tax and resident tax claims are all “tax claims arising from grounds before bankruptcy declaration,” and they constitute estate claims under Article 38 subparag. 2 of the former Bankruptcy Act.

(3) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the additional tax amount, excluding the principal tax, among the tax claims of the Defendants, does not constitute estate claims. However, as seen earlier, since the time when the liability for additional tax payment is established is the same as the time when the principal tax liability is established, the Defendants’ additional tax claims cannot be deemed to constitute estate claims (However, the above additional tax amount falls under “where there is a justifiable reason that is not attributable to the taxpayers due to their failure to perform their obligations, such as when it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayers to fulfill their obligations,” and thus, there is a ground for revocation in the disposition of imposition. However, as long as the above reason cannot be deemed to be a ground for revocation automatically of the disposition of imposition, the above judgment cannot be affected in the instant case after the lapse of all appeals period for each of the instant dispositions)

(4) In addition, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that additional dues due to each of the instant taxation claims do not constitute estate claims. However, as long as national or local tax claims arising from causes arising before the declaration of bankruptcy were declared bankrupt and they constitute estate claims, such claims constitute estate claims regardless of whether additional dues accrue after the declaration of bankruptcy or not. [The Constitutional Court has decided through May 29, 2008, through the Decision 2006HunGa6, 11, and 17 (Consolidation) of the former Bankruptcy Act, among the "claims that may be collected under the National Tax Collection Act" under the main sentence of Article 38(2) of the former Bankruptcy Act, that the portion of the "additional dues and increased additional dues arising from national or local taxes arising from causes arising before the declaration of bankruptcy" does not violate the Constitution], the above assertion is without merit.

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, each of the instant dispositions is lawful. Since each of the instant dispositions by the Defendants’ respective tax claims under each of the instant dispositions constitutes estate claims, both the principal tax, additional tax, and additional tax, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is all dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and it is so revoked and all of the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kang Young-ho (Presiding Judge)

A judge's failure to sign and seal due to a replacement of personnel;