Han-il Co., Ltd. (Attorney Or-do, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Head of Daegu Tax Office

may 24, 1983

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Main Purpose of Claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition exceeding KRW 2,60,056 among the disposition of imposition of KRW 7,109,873 on April 20, 1981 against the Plaintiff, as well as exceeding KRW 2,367 among the disposition of imposition of KRW 1,171,01,016 on the part of KRW 1,367 among the disposition of imposition of KRW 1,367 among the imposition of KRW 1,36,367 on the part of KRW 1,842,650 on the part of KRW 62,147,510 on the part of the disposition of imposition of KRW 11,097,187 on the part of KRW 11,49,30 on the part of the disposition of imposition of KRW 7,109,87 on the part of KRW 1979, KRW 46,79,960 on the part of the disposition of imposition of KRW 8,942,400 on the part of these taxes.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

Preliminary Claim

The part that exceeds KRW 2,60,056 of the imposition disposition of KRW 7,109,87 against the Plaintiff on April 20, 1981 and the part that exceeds KRW 236,367 of the imposition disposition of KRW 1,171,016 of the same defense tax, and the part that exceeds KRW 14,842,650 of the imposition disposition of KRW 62,147,510 of the imposition disposition of KRW 11,497,187 of the same defense tax, and the part that exceeds KRW 2,496,303 of the imposition disposition of KRW 11,49,96,969, KRW 869, KRW 8,942,40 of the imposition disposition of KRW 1,940,00 of the Class A earned income tax for year 1979 and KRW 2,367 of the imposition disposition of KRW 1,367 of the same defense tax; the part that exceeds above KRW 15,1614,75

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Class 8: (a) Disposition of tax base for 10.3 and 9.2; (b) Disposition of tax base for 19.3 and 10.3 through 4; (c) Disposition of tax base for 17.3 through 11.6 through 7.4; (d) Disposition of tax base for 197.4 and Disposition of Tax base for 197.4; (c) Disposition of tax base for 197.4 and Disposition of Tax base for 197.4; and (d) Disposition of tax base for 197.3 and 197.4 and the amount of tax base for 197.4 and the total amount of tax base for 197.4 and then paid for 197.4; and (d) Disposition of tax base for 197.4 and the amount of tax base for 197.4 and the amount of tax base for 197.4 and the amount of tax base for 197.4 and

2. The plaintiff's attorney shall investigate and determine corporate tax for each business year of 197, 1978, and 1979 against the plaintiff company, and the defendant shall pay 8,647,719 won in excess of the limit for confidential expenses under Article 44-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act for 1977, 68, and 57,479,564 won in advance of 1979, and shall be added to gross income and shall be disposed of as bonus from the disposal of profits to the plaintiff company's representative, and the defendant shall not request the revocation of the determination of the above disposal of the tax base as stipulated in the above Article 44-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act for the purpose of reviewing and determining the corporate tax for each business year of 197, 1979. The plaintiff shall not request the revocation of the determination of the above disposal base as stipulated in the above Article 5-2 of the Corporate Tax Act. Thus, the plaintiff shall not request the revocation of the determination of the disposal base of the tax base as stated in the above.

The following facts are examined as to the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of the tax notice of this case, and evidence Nos. 10 of this case No. 7,109,873 won and defense income tax 1,171,016 won and defense income tax 62,147,510 won and defense income tax 11,097,510 won and defense income tax 11,097,187,197,96 won and defense income tax 46,79,966 won and defense income tax 8,425,061 won and total amount of 136,750,6130,613 of this case as of September 1, 1981 according to the defendant's disposition of the tax notice of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of this case is not a separate claim for confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of this case.

Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is inappropriate because it is not necessary to judge the main claim and the conjunctive claim, and it is decided to dismiss it. It is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

June 14, 1983

Judges Yoon Young-ok (Presiding Judge)