Value of probative value in civil litigation or tax litigation of facts recognized in the final and conclusive relevant criminal judgment;

The recognition of a final and conclusive criminal judgment may not be rejected unless there are special circumstances that make it impossible to employ it, even though it is not detained by the facts recognized in the criminal trial in the civil procedure or tax litigation.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1573 Decided March 26, 1985, 81Da1166, 81Meu897 Decided September 13, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1497 Decided January 21, 1986

Attorney Park Chang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff corporation-appellant

Head of Dong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu844 delivered on March 28, 1985

Of the part against the defendant of the judgment below, the part of the corporate tax, defense tax and value-added tax for the business year of 78. Business year and 79. Business year of the plaintiff corporation imposed on September 18, 1981, shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded

The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's remaining appeal are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal dismissed, the costs of appeal by the plaintiff are assessed against the plaintiff, and the costs of appeal by the defendant are assessed against the defendant.

1. Judgment on the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant's processed transaction details, which form the basis of the tax disposition in this case, as shown in the attached Tables 1 and 2 of the judgment below, are not merely based on the statement at the investigation agency of the non-party abnormal iron as shown in the attached Tables 1 and 2 of the judgment below, but also based on the fact that the non-party takeover, who is an employee of the other party company, and the non-party 1, who was the representative of the plaintiff company at that time, and other records and evidential documents of the plaintiff company and the non-party 1, who was seized at the prosecutor's office based on the results of the investigation, were examined, and confirmed as above based on the facts established in the criminal judgment of the case related to the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders against the non-party 1, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 81No865 delivered on July 15, 1981). The plaintiff's assertion that the above taxation disposition in this case was made based only on the statement of the non-party iron iron.

B. In addition, although the court below acknowledged only a part of the transaction stated in the above attached Table 1 and 2 as an actual transaction and concluded all of the remainder as a processing transaction against the rules of evidence, as seen in the judgment on the defendant's grounds of appeal to be stated later, the court below did not regard all the transaction listed in the above attached Table 1 and 2 as a processing transaction, and the place where the court below recognized a part of the judgment as an actual transaction is contrary to the rules of evidence, and therefore it is no longer reasonable to discuss it.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the judgment against the defendant as to the disposition of imposition of corporate tax as of October 20, 1981 among the taxation disposition in this case, the defendant's appeal on this part is not dismissed as it is unlawful, since there is no indication in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief in the grounds of appeal.

B. Furthermore, we examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer concerning the taxation disposition by September 18, 1981.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that Gap evidence Nos. 13-3, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 14-1 through 8, 13 through 17, and 19 (each of the second testimony during the training period, part of the witness and the whole purport of oral argument in the attached Table 1-2, 2, 15, 16, 16, 28, 31, 33, and 41 of the transactions listed in attached Table 2 as shown in attached Table 2, 6, 11, 17, 18, 29, 38, 41, and 444 were not processed transactions, but it did not constitute a real transaction after being actually purchased from non-party Gohap and issued a tax invoice for it, and rejected the plaintiff's purchase of part of the evidence No. 8-9, 9, and 96 of the denial of the tax invoice.

However, according to the records, although the plaintiff company and the non-party 1, who was the representative director of the plaintiff company, did not actually purchase the barb, as shown in the attached Table 1, 2 of the judgment of the court below in the business year of 1978 and the business year of 1979, the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, who was the representative director of the plaintiff company, did not actually purchase the barbb, as stated in the attached Table 1, 2 of the judgment of the court below, they could not be dismissed from the judgment of the court of first instance or the judgment of the court of first instance which became final and conclusive because they were not charged with the non-party company with the purchase and disposal of the barbba, which purchased the barba, and used the barbabag from the non-party company to withdraw the barbag from the factory year of 1978.

However, it is clear that the court below found the transaction details stated in the attached Table 1 and 2 of the judgment below as a real transaction rather than a processing transaction, and it is inconsistent with the facts established in the above-mentioned criminal judgment. However, after comparing the evidence adopted as evidence for finding facts contrary to the above-mentioned conflicting facts, the court below's determination that Gap evidence Nos. 13 and Gap evidence No. 14 (written acceptance) were removed by the court below's examination of the records of the above-mentioned criminal case, such as violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax Evasion) against the defendant No. 82080, which is the above-mentioned criminal case, and its contents were judged as a processing transaction, and the witness no later than the court below's witness was adopted as a witness in the above-mentioned criminal case and testified to the same effect as the testimony at the court below's judgment, it is clear that the witness testimony was all rejected in the above-mentioned criminal case, and therefore, it is found that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the facts which affected the judgment of the facts.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed for the business year 78. 78. 18. 79 and the part of corporate tax, defense tax and value-added tax for the business year 79. This part of the case is remanded to Seoul High Court. The plaintiff's appeal and the remaining appeal of the defendant are dismissed. The costs of appeal of the dismissed appeal are assessed against the losing party by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jin-Post (Presiding Justice)