The costs of each appeal shall be borne by each appellant.

With respect to that 1

However, the court below's reasoning that the registration of March 18, 1966 was closed, and even if the representative director's issuance of a certificate of seal imprint was impossible, it cannot be concluded that the registration of the above date was invalid in a document forged by Nonparty 1. Thus, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the procedure for registration of ownership transfer of the real estate owned by the juristic person in the judgment of the original court.

With respect to that two:

However, the under-reported penalty tax is imposed as a kind of penalty tax pursuant to Article 45 (1) 2 of the Corporate Tax Act, which was in force at the time, and it is not a double taxation that was imposed on the plaintiff company, unlike the corporate principal tax, as well as the double taxation that was imposed on the plaintiff company.

With respect to that three:

However, according to the reasoning of the original statement, the plaintiff was merged into the plaintiff company on August 17, 1963, and the real estate on the land at that time was registered in the above ○ commercial name on the register, and this on March 18, 1966 was sold to the non-party ○○ commercial and registered before that month, despite the fact that it was registered before that month, the plaintiff filed a return on the price statement for the 28th and 1st among them, and did not make a return on the remaining 3rd lots. Thus, it is obvious that the plaintiff should impose additional tax on the plaintiff if the plaintiff reported only 580,000 won without filing a return on the total purchase price as the gross income. Therefore, it is not reasonable to conclude that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles.

With respect to that 4

However, the author argues that the court below's exercise of its exclusive power over the selection of evidence has no way to employ it. The author argues that there is no reason to do so.

With respect to that five:

Since the taxation claims are determined by a declaration by the party concerned or by a tax notice and the extinctive prescription shall take place only when they are confirmed to be the final tax claims, there is no theory in the lower court’s determination that the extinctive prescription under Article 103(1) of the National Tax Collection Act has yet to be completed on December 22, 1967. The argument is groundless.

(2) We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers.

The issue is that the defendant's detailed and disposition of Class A earned income should be legitimate, but the provision of Article 12 (2) 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, which was enforced at the time when it was the basis of taxation, is invalid in violation of the Corporate Tax Act or the tax law caution without any basis under the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, is a party member's case (Supreme Court Decision 68Nu9 delivered on June 25, 63, and 68Nu9 delivered on June 25, 200). Thus,

Therefore, the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

The chief judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)