In the event that the head of the Public Security Headquarters delivers the money deposited by domestic corporations to the Council in the case of the Republic of Korea without depositing the money in the Gu account of the revenue and expenditure other than the revenue and expenditure pursuant to the provision of the internal affairs and expenditure, whether the money constitutes "money and expenditure donated free of charge to the State or local government" under Article 18 (2) 1

The term "money and valuables donated free of charge to the State or local government" under Article 18 (2) 1 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4282 of Dec. 31, 1990) refers to the money and valuables in the case where the other party to the donation is the State or local government, and it does not change its nature according to the method of ex post facto disposal of money and valuables by the State or local government. Thus, if it is difficult for the juristic person that was engaged in insurance business for the vehicles belonging to the Public Security Headquarters to receive the money from the juristic person that was engaged in all business of insurance business for the vehicles belonging to the Public Security Headquarters, the head of the Public Security Headquarters who has received the deposit of the money under the name of the promotion fund shall deposit the money to the Gu accounting official other than the revenue and expenditure under the provision of the internal affairs concerning partial payment of the authority to approve payment of donation, even if the money and valuables have been delivered to the Council for use for the improvement of the welfare of its members, the above money and valuables shall not be deemed the so-called designated donation.

Article 18 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4282 of Dec. 31, 1990)

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu379 delivered on September 9, 1986 (No. 90Nu5504 Delivered on November 27, 1990)

Gyeongan Investment Business Corporation

Head of Western Tax Office

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 11,024,040 as corporate tax for the year 1985 against the Plaintiff and KRW 1,697,090 as corporate tax for the year 1985 and its defense tax for the amount of KRW 13,292,930 as corporate tax for the year 1986, KRW 2,318,970 as corporate tax for the year 1986, KRW 13,272,350 as corporate tax for the year 1987, and KRW 2,697,410 as corporate tax for the amount of KRW 13,272,350 as corporate tax for the year 1987.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

. The defendant shall not obtain 0. 1 to 3, 4 (Articles of Incorporation), 5 (Partial Payment of Contributions), 1 to 80. 1 to 60. 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, 1 to 00, 2 and 3 of the above-mentioned No. 1 to 10, 500, 1 to 60. 8 of the above-mentioned No. 90, 1 to 108 of the Act, 400, 1 to 108 of the Act, 200, 1 to 10, 2000, 300, 1000, 500, 500, 60,0000,000 won and 1 to 10,000,000 won and 5,000,000 won and 10,000,000 won and 10,000 won and 10,00 won, respectively;

In addition, Article 18(1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that if a corporation recognizes an unlimited inclusion of a donation made by it for each business year in deductible expenses, it may affect the securing of tax revenues of the State by choosing contributions instead of corporate tax payment, and thus, in principle, it recognizes the inclusion of deductible expenses within a certain amount of the donation in light of its financial capacity and size (so designated donation). Article 18(2) of the same Act exceptionally provides that the value of the donation made without compensation to the State or a local government (Article 18(1) of the same Act (Article 18(1) of the Corporate Tax Act) shall be treated as deductible expenses in the purport that the State has the same effect as securing tax revenue, national defense donation, and relief supplies for victims of disaster (Article 2), natural disaster (Article 3) and the value of the donation made without compensation to the State or a local government (Article 18(1) of the same Act shall be treated as deductible expenses in the same manner as the donation made without compensation by the State or the local government (Article 18(2) of the same Act).

According to the above facts and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above amount deposited by the plaintiff to the head of the Public Security Headquarters is not so-called designated donation under Article 18 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act, regardless of the method of ex post facto disposal of money and valuables, and it is reasonable to view it as "value of money and valuables donated free of charge to the State or a local government" under Article 18 (2) 1 of the Corporate Tax Act. Therefore, each taxation that the defendant regarded it as

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the ground that each of the above taxation dispositions was unlawful is reasonable, and therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the defendant who has lost the lawsuit costs.

Judges Kim Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)