1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff was 10,00,000 won and 20,000 won for the above 10,000 won and 10,000 won for the above 10,00 won and 10,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 20,00 won for the above 10,00 won for the above 10,00 won for the company's shares, 30,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the company's 10,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the company's 10,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the company's shares and 10,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the company's own shares.

2. With respect to the scope of donations made by a corporation not included in deductible expenses under Article 18 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 40 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the difference between the corporation’s transfer at a price lower than the arm’s length price or the purchase of assets at a price higher than the arm’s length price without justifiable cause shall be regarded as donations. Meanwhile, Article 16-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that where the arm’s length price or market price under Articles 40 (1), 41 (1) and 46 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is unclear, it shall be based on the market price assessed by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act or the appraisal price at a reliable appraisal institution’s market price under the Local Tax Act in a specific area.

According to the evidence evidence evidence evidence Nos. 3 and 4 of this case's land as of May 1, 1979, the tax standard market value of the National Tax Service as of May 1, 1979 was 250,000 won, and it is apparent that the total amount of 907 square meters is 226,750,000 won. According to the market price appraisal result of the non-party's appraiser of the original judgment, the value of 629,643,00 won as of the original judgment's land is 629,643,00 won, and there is a building on the ground and a part of the building belongs to other person's own, the value of 251,857,200 won is 0,000 won, and the value of 20,000 won and 20,000 won under the premise that the non-party company's share in the above land should be owned by the non-party 2 of this case's building's 270, 2500, 20000,2,200000.

3. If the court below collected the facts duly established and the materials indicated in the judgment below, the plaintiff should re-construction of the above market building as fire No. 27 November 27, 1978. The plaintiff purchased 201,601,120 won from Busan Metropolitan City and did not pay the remaining part of the purchase price, and the market building which is the land of this case shall be constructed on the ground that only five stories or more can be constructed due to urban planning limit, and the remaining price of the land of this case shall be 00,000,000 Busan Metropolitan City and 00,000,000,000,000,000 won and 0,000,000,000 won and 0,000,000,000 won and 0,000,000,000 won and 0,000,000,000 won and 0,000,00,000,00.

4. Ultimately, in this regard, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the arm's length price and justifiable reasons as stipulated in Article 40 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and by misunderstanding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence, and raising an appeal to criticize the wrong facts, which led to the misapprehension of the rules of evidence. Therefore, the part against the plaintiff among the judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)