(a) Whether it falls under an unfair act in case where the fund borrowed by the construction mutual aid association is lent to the members at low interest rate or after interest payment method; and

(b) Time to determine whether an administrative disposition is lawful;

(c) The allowances, travel expenses, retirement allowances, and retirement bonus for non-standing executives;

(d) Where the Korea Construction Financial Cooperative pays a rent to the Korea Construction Association, whether an amount equivalent to interest is appropriate for measures for calculation of earnings;

(e) Whether management is appropriate according to the management diagnosis costs and the disbursement methods of automobile acquisition tax; and

F. Legal nature of the Construction Financial Cooperative

(g) Whether it constitutes an unfair act in cases where the construction mutual aid association has loaned its own operational funds to its members and has received interest on loans from its members at a general interest rate not on the overdraft;

A. Where it is deemed that the corporate tax burden has been unjustly reduced due to the corporate income under Article 20(1) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 46(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act refers to the case where the corporate tax purpose is to unjustly avoid or reduce the tax burden by abusing all the transaction forms listed in each subparagraph of Article 46(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, or where the transaction type is deemed to have neglected the economic rationality even without such intent. Therefore, it was to achieve the purpose of the Construction Mutual Aid Association Act by lending the funds borrowed from a commercial bank to its members at a low interest rate or later interest rate, and to achieve the purpose of the Construction Mutual Aid Association Act, even if the Plaintiff did not have an intention to unfairly reduce the tax burden, barring special circumstances, the said amount of damage was paid by the Plaintiff to the association members of the Plaintiff, which was received by the Plaintiff and equivalent to the Plaintiff’s interest or the Plaintiff’s interest based on the payment method, and this constitutes a case where the Plaintiff’s tax burden

B. The time to determine the illegality of the administrative disposition is the time of the administrative disposition. Therefore, there is no ground for appeal on the ground of the amendment of the law that occurred after the tax disposition in question.

C. The Plaintiff’s non-standing executive members’ allowances and allowance for the operating committee members did not receive a general salary, but received a fixed amount monthly payment without relation to the number of days of attendance at the meeting, and as long as the retirement allowance and allowance for retirement was paid without the nature of the bonus while on duty, the substance of the bonus shall be deemed to be the salary with the nature of the bonus.

D. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff and the Korea Construction Association have a special relationship under Article 20 of the Corporate Tax Act, and that the payment of rent under the Civil Act is the principle of post-payment, it is legitimate for the Defendant to add the recognized interest and the amount equivalent to the portion for which the period has not yet arrived to the Plaintiff to the Korea Construction Association, which is the owner of the construction, in advance, during each business year.

E. We affirm the decision that the Plaintiff’s management diagnosis expenses paid to the Korea Productivity in order to develop human resources and productivity shall be recognized as development expenses, which are assets subject to depreciation, and the automobile acquisition tax shall be included in the acquisition value of automobiles as incidental expenses for automobile acquisition, and each of the above expenses shall be dealt with

(f) Although the construction mutual aid association is a corporation established under special Acts, it shall not be deemed a corporation which has the purpose of establishment similar to a non-profit corporation under Article 32 of the Civil Act.

G. When the construction mutual aid association loans part of its own operating funds to its members as part of the financing business which is a part of the target business as provided by the Construction Mutual Aid Association Act, the act of receiving interest on loans under the general loan interest rate in a commercial bank without receiving interest on loans from the commercial bank in accordance with the basic policy on the Plaintiff’s financing business, shall not be deemed to constitute an act of unfairly reducing the tax burden on the Plaintiff’s income.

(g)Article 20(1) of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 46(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 1(c) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 21(d) of the Income Tax Act, Article 20 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 618(f) of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 16(g) of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 32 of the

A. Supreme Court Decision 78Nu457 delivered on February 27, 1979, Supreme Court Decision 82Nu117 delivered on December 13, 1983

Attorney Jeon Jong-gu, Counsel for the construction mutual aid association

Attorney Yang Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 74Gu64 delivered on September 24, 1980

All appeals are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the part arising from the plaintiff's appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the part arising from the defendant's appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The plaintiff's attorney's grounds of appeal (if the supplementary appellate brief was not accompanied by the above grounds of appeal on June 10, 1981, March 3, 1983, May 17, 1983, to the extent of supplement) are examined.

A. The portion equivalent to the interest on a low loan

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the difference between the interest accrued from a bank at the time of the business year of 1971 and the business year of 26.8% (26.4% to 26.8%) and the interest accrued from the loan to its members at an annual interest rate of 24% or less per annum, and that the above difference is part of the interest income that the plaintiff has to receive as a matter of course for the interests of the union members with a special relationship with the plaintiff. In light of the records, the above measures of the court below are just and there are no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles, and the court below did not err in finding that the loan interest rate and loan interest rate are a low interest rate without calculating the overall profits and losses as a unit of the business year of the plaintiff, and under Article 20 of the Corporate Tax Act, which was enforced at the time of each business year of the plaintiff, and Article 46 (2) 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the court below's judgment is justified in its calculation of the income amount of each juristic person.

B. The portion equivalent to the interest recognized due to the subsequent interest

The court below determined that the plaintiff's loan of interest from a bank at the time of intermediate payment based on macroficsive evidence that the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the plaintiff's loan of interest and the granting of benefit from the loan by the method of payment are the amount of income earned by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff's tax burden on the plaintiff's income has been reduced unfairly. According to the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law which misleads the plaintiff's substance or reason for taxation such as theory of lawsuit, and the Supreme Court Decision 75Nu258 Decided November 23, 197 is different from this case. Further, since the court below's decision that the plaintiff's loan of interest from the bank at the time of intermediate payment is justified and the court below's decision that the plaintiff's loan of interest from the corporation under Article 20 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 46 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act could not be reduced unfairly by misunderstanding the plaintiff's tax burden and 7.

C. The portion of the paid-in amount and the denied amount of retirement pay

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the non-party 1 or the non-party 2, the non-party 3, and the non-party 4 who received the allowance or the premium for retirement and the bonus for retirement are all the members of the plaintiff's operating committee, and that the non-party 2, the non-party 3, and the non-party 4 who received the allowance or the bonus for retirement and the bonus for retirement are all non-party 4, and that the plaintiff's operating committee did not receive general wages such as basic wages or fixed wages as non-standing workers. However, the non-party 2 did not receive a fixed amount every month for allowances or the bonus for retirement and the bonus for retirement without any relation with the number of days of attendance at the operating committee which are non-permanently held once every month or every two months, and the above non-party 2's allowance or bonus for retirement and the bonus for retirement cannot be deemed a lawful remuneration for the attendance of the operating committee. In light of the records, the court below's determination of the above facts and determination is just and there is no violation of law in the principle of substantial taxation.

E. Development costs and acquisition tax portion

According to the records, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff's management diagnosis expenses paid to the Korea Productivity Center of the non-party corporation for the development of human resources and productivity are recognized as development expenses of assets subject to depreciation, and that the automobile acquisition tax shall be included in the acquisition value of automobiles as incidental expenses for automobile acquisition, and there is no violation of the Corporate Tax Act, such as the theory of lawsuit

F. The part on the plaintiff's non-profit nature

Although the plaintiff is a juristic person established by special laws, it cannot be viewed as a juristic person with the purpose of establishment similar to a non-profit juristic person under Article 32 of the Civil Act, and the judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no violation of Article 18 of the Framework Act on National Taxes such as theory of lawsuit.

2. The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

A. The portion equivalent to the interest on a low interest on loans

Based on macro-Evidence, the court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff's low interest rate loans and equivalent amounts to the loan interest in the business year of 1972 are 67,96,980, and according to the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence.

B. The portion equivalent to interest on a low-interest loan for self-operating funds

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when the plaintiff loans part of its own operating funds to its members as part of the financing business, which is one of the target business under the Construction Mutual Aid Association Act, the court below held that the act of receiving interest on loans from commercial banks under the general loan interest rate in accordance with the basic policy for the plaintiff's financing business without receiving interest on loans from commercial banks, does not constitute an act of unfairly reducing the tax burden on the plaintiff's income. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

3. Therefore, each appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant is without merit, and all appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)