A. Whether the disposition of changing the accounting books with limited liability to the unavoidable motive is made and whether the principle of good faith is violated

(b) Whether an additional tax may be levied on the grounds that the payment record has not been submitted following the notice of change in the amount of illegal income;

A. Even if a corporation’s disposal of the repayment of the acquisition obligation following the purchase of assets (golf course) by changing it into the provisional payment to the representative director on the account book, which made it difficult for the tax authority to grasp the actual transaction details and thereby hindering the exercise of tax authority, the reason why the change of the motive was being processed was in the establishment of the corporation, and there were unavoidable circumstances, such as the so-called 8-3 Emergency Measures, which led to the failure to change the debtor’s name according to the assumption of obligation. In addition, if the other party to the act is the tax authority that has a superior position under tax laws such as the right of on-site investigation, etc., it cannot be said that the act violated the principle

B. If the corporate income determination itself is illegal, the tax authority’s notice of change in the amount of income should lose the premise of taxation, and thus, the corporation in receipt of the notice did not submit a payment record on the amount of income, and thus, cannot impose an additional tax for failure to submit a payment record under Article 41(4) of the Corporate Tax Act.

(a) Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes;

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu480 Decided April 8, 1986

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 10 others (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorney Choi Jong-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Head of Suwon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu1118 delivered on April 2, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to the First Ground:

According to the court below's duly established decision, the USPPP Co., Ltd., the plaintiff's party to the lawsuit at the time of the settlement of the business year 1976, took over the debt amount which the non-party company was taking over from the non-party Dong Tourism Co., Ltd. as part of the purchase price. At that time, the above USPPPP Co., Ltd. was in the process of its establishment because it did not change the debtor's name following the acquisition of the above bank's obligation due to emergency measures such as 8/3 emergency measures, etc., and did not appropriate the above acquisition debt amount temporarily in the purchase price of the above bank's obligation, and did not pay it in the purchase price of the company's obligation, and did not make it in the book and processed it with the provisional payment for the representative director, and did not make it difficult for the other party to the investigation to understand that it was in violation of the principle of trust and good faith, and even if it was difficult for the other party to the transaction to understand it from 197.

In addition, although the court below did not explicitly decide the defendant's above assertion, the defendant's assertion that the measure that the defendant denied the appropriation of the corporation's acquisition debt as deductible expenses for the repayment of the above company's acquisition debt and determined the corporate income by adding it to the gross income is not considered to have been rejected indirectly. Thus, the defendant's assertion is not justified.

With respect to the second ground:

If the tax authority considers the amount added to gross income as a bonus disposed of under the Corporate Tax Act while examining and determining the corporate income amount, the tax authority is obligated to submit a payment record pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Corporate Tax Act when it receives the notification of change in income amount when the tax authority notifies the relevant corporation of change in income amount pursuant to Article 150(4) of the Income Tax Act, and Article 198(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the relevant corporation is obligated to submit a payment record pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Corporate Tax Act when it receives the notification of change in income amount. However, if the above determination of corporate income itself is illegal, the notification of change in income amount by the tax authority would lose the premise of taxation, and thus, it cannot add additional tax for failure to submit a payment record pursuant to Article 41(

Therefore, in the same purport, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as asserted in the disposition of imposing additional tax, which held that the defendant did not submit a payment record on the bonus disposition by the above company on the premise that the amount of the judgment in the business year of 1976, which was appropriated as deductible expenses in the name of repayment for bank loans, is illegal, while examining and assessing the corporate income amount of the above USPPPS corporation in the business year of 1976.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)