(a) The legality of the method of calculating corporate tax income on a corporation with one year business year in the first and second half years;

(b) The method of determining the tax base amount of corporate business tax in case where the corporate business tax base is estimated by a partner right type.

1. The purport of Article 2(1)1 and Article 5(1) of the Corporate Tax Act is that the corporate tax shall be imposed on the income of the business year with a business year for a period of not more than one year which does not exceed the maximum of one year. Thus, it is not erroneous in the calculation of the income of the business year with a business year with a business year of one year not exceeding one year, but by dividing it into the first and second half half.

2. Where a business tax base is determined by a partner authority type, etc. pursuant to relevant provisions such as Article 94(1)2 and Article 93(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (Ordinance No. 5899, Apr. 24, 1973; Ordinance No. 6642, Apr. 24, 1973), the tax base amount of the business tax shall be estimated by the method provided by Article 93(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and no other method shall be used.

Articles 2(1)1, 5(1), and 33(4) of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 94(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 93(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Attorney Jeon Jong-young, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 76Gu558 delivered on May 3, 1978

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding the part of corporate tax assessment for the first half of 1974 (from January 1, 1974 to June 30), shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal against the dismissal of an appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant litigation performer is examined.

The corporate tax provides that the corporate tax shall be imposed on the income for each business year, and the business year means one fiscal period, which does not exceed one year, and the purport of Article 2 (1) 1 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 5 (1) of the same Act provides that the corporate tax shall be a business year with a period not exceeding one year, and the corporate tax shall be imposed on the income for the business year. It is clear that it does not necessarily mean that the corporate tax shall be imposed only on the income that is comprehensively calculated in the total period of one year of the business year, such as the theory of lawsuit, and it is clear that the court below calculated the income in the calculation of the income for the business year of the plaintiff corporation in the first and second half of the year. It cannot be said that there is a misunderstanding of the legal principles of the Corporate Tax Act in the theory of lawsuit.

This issue is groundless.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in investigating and determining the business year operating income tax for the plaintiff corporation from January 1, 1974 to December 31 of the same year, the court below determined that with respect to the income of the plaintiff corporation for the same period from January 1, 1974 to June 30 of the same year, since the account books and documentary evidence of the plaintiff corporation are incomplete or false for the same period, the amount of income of the new hotel located in the vicinity of the plaintiff corporation is determined by the relevant provisions of the Business Tax Act and the Corporate Tax Act. The court below determined that even if the actual business income tax base is estimated by the method of partner authority, and that the actual business income base is estimated by the method of partner authority, even if the total amount of losses in the transaction exceeds the estimated business tax base by the method of partner authority, the amount of the income of the plaintiff corporation for the same period exceeds the estimated business income tax base by the plaintiff corporation is unlawful for the above period of imposition of corporate tax for the reason that the loss tax of the plaintiff corporation for the same period exceeds the estimated business tax base amount.

However, according to Articles 94(1)2 and 94(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 5899, Apr. 24, 1973; Presidential Decree No. 6642, Apr. 24, 1973) and Article 93(2) of the Corporate Tax Act, where a taxpayer has no accounting books and documentary evidence of a corporation, or where a business tax base is determined by a partner right type due to lack of contents or falsity, the tax base and tax amount for the business year shall be determined under the preceding Article 93(2) and Article 93(2) of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2316, Mar. 28, 191; Presidential Decree No. 2566, Mar. 3, 1973).

Therefore, in investigating and determining the income of the plaintiff corporation during the above period, the defendant should have estimated the business tax base amount of the plaintiff corporation by the method of the so-called trade right type in accordance with the provisions of related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Business Tax Act, on the ground that the contents of the books and documentary evidence of the plaintiff corporation are incomplete or false, and should have been determined accordingly. However, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, the court below judged that the part of imposing corporate tax equivalent to the income of the plaintiff corporation is illegal on the ground that the loan amount which the defendant estimated for the same period as the business tax base amount of the plaintiff corporation exceeds the above tax base amount of the corporation for the same period, on the ground that the interest on the loan amount to be deemed as losses of the plaintiff corporation for the same period exceeds the above

It is reasonable to point out this issue.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the appeal against the defendant regarding the disposition of imposition of corporate tax from January 1, 1974 to June 30 of the first half of the judgment of the court below is with merit, and this part of the case is reversed and remanded. The appeal against the dismissed part of the judgment of the court below is delivered with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)