Whether the parent law under the proviso of Article 100-4 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which provides that interest on negotiable regular deposits shall be withheld among the interest income amount of finance and

In case of classification of income under the Income Tax Act, it should be confirmed by the concept of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, in case where a domestic corporation's bonds, securities, or expected interest income constitutes business income not interest income under the Income Tax Act, such income does not constitute interest income under the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4020, Dec. 26, 198) and Article 39 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12565, Dec. 31, 198), although the proviso of Article 100-4 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12565, Dec. 31, 198) provides that the income subject to withholding of the interest of fixed deposits among the interest income of the finance and finance business that constitutes business income under the Income Tax Act shall be withheld only in accordance with the provisions of Article 39 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act, it shall not be allowed to interpret the provision of the principle of no taxation without law.

Article 39 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 26, 198), Article 100-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12565 of Dec. 31, 1988), Article 142 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990), Articles 17 and 20 of the same Act, Article 36 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Jeju Bank, Inc.

The Head of the Maternization Tax Office

The defendant's imposition of 19,972,920 won and 1,987,570 won and 1,988 corporate tax for the 1987 business year, each of which was made by the plaintiff on July 6, 1989, shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

In full view of the whole purport of pleadings as to Gap evidence 1-1-2 ( separate tax payment notice), Eul evidence 1-2 (additional Tax Payment Record, Additional Tax Payment Record), Eul evidence 3 (Additional Tax Payment Record) and Eul evidence 4 (Annual Payment Record) without dispute, the plaintiff is also a domestic corporation operating financial business and issued a certificate of time deposit to non-party Credit Guarantee Fund, Export-Import Bank, Korea Development Investment, Anti-do Investment, Dog Investment, and New Dog Community Credit Guarantee Fund (hereinafter "non-party financial institution"), which is also a domestic corporation operating financial business, 1987; 53,939,718 won; 609,082,05 won; 60,000 won; 1,371, 2365, 268, 367, 1987, 1967, 367, 198, 467, 1967, 197, 367, 1967, 1967, 2067, 368

In regard to the Defendant’s assertion that the instant taxation disposition was lawful on the grounds of the above disposition grounds and applicable provisions of law, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant taxation disposition was unlawful on the grounds that the interest on the transferred time deposit received by the Plaintiff by the said financial institution constitutes business income under Article 20 of the Income Tax Act, not the interest income under Article 63(1)2 of the Corporate Tax Act, Articles 142(1)1 and 17(1) of the Income Tax Act, and that it constitutes business income under Article 20 of the Income Tax Act, although the Plaintiff did not submit a written payment report, the instant taxation

Therefore, Article 63 (1) of the Income Tax Act provides that if a person who pays interest income falling under any of the following subparagraphs has paid it to the Government by the end of the month following such payment date, he shall submit a payment record under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 142 (1) 2 of the Income Tax Act provides that a person who pays income or income amount under any of the following subparagraphs to a resident or a nonresident in Korea shall withhold income tax pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Article 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act provides that the person who pays interest income under the above Article 63 (1) of the Income Tax Act shall submit a payment record for each of the above Article 2 of the Income Tax Act (the above Article 17 (1) of the Income Tax Act provides that interest income generated from a domestic corporation shall not be included in the total amount of income generated from the domestic business, but shall not be included in the amount of income generated from the domestic business (the above Article 17 (2) of the Income Tax Act provides that interest income generated from the domestic corporation's business shall not be included in the following subparagraph 3 of Article 2 of the same Act:

Meanwhile, the defendant asserts that the corporation that pays negotiable interest on time deposits is also obligated to submit written evidence of payment under the interpretation of the proviso of Article 100-4 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which provides for the duty to withhold interest on time deposits. Thus, Article 39 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the person who pays interest income or income to a domestic corporation under Article 142 (1) 1 and 5 of the Income Tax Act shall collect corporate tax equivalent to the amount calculated by applying the tax rate under subparagraph 1 or 6 of Article 144 of the Income Tax Act and pay it to the Government not later than the 10th day of the month following the month in which the date of collection falls. In this case, Article 146-2 of the Income Tax Act provides that the payment period of interest income shall not apply to the above corporation's interest income under Article 10-4 (1) through (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which does not include the following provisions concerning negotiable interest income under Article 14 of the Income Tax Act:

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the taxation disposition of this case is reasonable, and therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the defendant's charge which is the losing party.

Judges Choi Han-ro (Presiding Judge)