Whether the act of offering a security without compensation for the company in accordance with the government policy on the settlement of loan constitutes an unfair act under Article 20 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act.

Where it is deemed that the corporate tax burden on the income of the corporation under Article 20 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act has been unjustly reduced, the judgment below is justified in holding that the relevant corporation's abuse of all the forms of transactions listed in each subparagraph of Article 46 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, thereby unfairly evading or reducing the tax burden, or that the transaction type is deemed to have neglected the economic rationality, even without such intention, it does not constitute the act of offering free security to the bank for the ice company in accordance with the government policy on debt settlement.

Article 20(1) of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 46(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na11448 delivered on May 1, 200

Litigation Performers of the Jung-gu Tax Office and five others

Seoul High Court Decision 77Gu466 delivered on October 31, 1978

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the above non-party company's establishment registration of a political party to the real estate of this case was not made in the future of the above non-party company without any consideration for the loan of 1,541,817,95 won from the non-party 3 corporation and the foreign exchange bank in accordance with the government policy for foreign capital management to the effect that the non-party 4 corporation's above establishment of a political party to the above non-party 6 corporation's income in the business year 1973 (from April 1, 1973 to March 31, 1974) and it was legitimate for the court below to have determined that the above non-party 4 corporation's above provision of security was illegal or reduced by 70 percent of the total amount of the loan of 1,541,817,95 won, 245, 307, 360% of the total amount of the loan of this case to the above non-party 4 corporation's income.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)