Whether the amount is deemed to be immediately depreciated, and whether the raw materials so sold are inventory assets or depreciable assets;

In case of intangible assets not used for business and non-sale inventory assets, it is legitimate to make up for the reservation by excluding the purchase cost from the deductible expenses as fixed assets subject to the immediate depreciation agenda.

Article 19 of the Corporate Tax Act

Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 16 subparag. 12 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998), Article 23(1) and (2) of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 60 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970 of Dec. 31, 1998), and Article 24(2) subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, those that are not used for business among the fixed assets of a corporation that may be depreciation are not included in depreciable assets except for idle facilities.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that in the case of gold-type (1) as stated in the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff did not use the gold-type (2) from November 1, 1997 to the production of the product for a long time, and the possibility of using the gold-type (2) has ceased to exist in the future. The plaintiff's representative director also prepared a written confirmation that the gold-type (2) is no different from the waste-type (2) in the course of the tax investigation from March 1997. In the case of gold-type (2) in the case of a foreign company, the gold-type (2) is a trade practice in the same industry, and the plaintiff's representative director also prepared a written confirmation that the gold-type (2) ownership was in the product-type (2) in the course of the tax investigation, and the gold-type (2) is the gold-type (2) that the actual owner of the gold-type (2) is not the plaintiff's depreciable assets, and it is not the plaintiff's depreciable assets (3).

In light of relevant statutes and records, the above recognition and determination by the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to depreciable assets and misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence.

2. Conclusion

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