(a) The time when the corporate tax evasion offense was committed; and

(b) Whether the income from the omission in the tax base report constitutes an exception to the amount of illegal income under Article 9-2 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

A. According to Articles 26, 31, and 32 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3200, Dec. 28, 1979), corporate tax is in principle a tax return method, and the penal provisions on the act of evading corporate tax should also be applied to Article 9-3 subparagraph 2 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

(b) Income in itself for the purpose of evading taxes and omitted from a tax base return is not an exception to the illegal income under Article 9-2 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

(a) Subparagraph 2 (b) of Article 9-3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Do1003 Delivered on July 23, 1985

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Hong-chul

Seoul High Court Decision 83No565 delivered on February 8, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Articles 26, 31, and 32 of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3200 of Dec. 28, 1979), the corporate tax is in principle a tax return method, and therefore, it is reasonable to apply penal provisions on the act of evading the corporate tax to Article 9-3 subparagraph 2 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below in this regard is just and contrary opinion that the theory of the lawsuit from the premise that the tax amount is determined by the method of imposition and collection is not adopted, and the precedents of the party members of the novel land register cannot be appropriate for this case.

2. In this case, the judgment of the court below is just and contrary to the opinion that the income is subject to the above exception, since the income which was omitted from the tax base return is not subject to the exception of the illegal income under Article 9-2 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice) No. 3 of this day set forth in this day shall be signed upon retirement.