Whether the indication of the order is revoked that the portion exceeding the tax amount corresponding to the specified amount of the tax base (negative)

The judgment order must be specified and its contents should be specified by the order itself, and the part exceeding the tax base amount corresponding to the certain amount of tax base is revoked and the remaining claim is dismissed, and it is not clear to what extent the tax amount imposed is revoked, and the cancelled part cannot be specified and the dismissed part cannot be separated. Therefore, this order has a clearness to be prepared as a judgment.

Articles 1 and 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 193(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu294 delivered on March 8, 1983

E.L. Systunton Rocod, Attorneys Kim Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu574 delivered on July 6, 1982

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

(1) For its reasons, the lower court determined that: (a) the Plaintiff Company supplied its original objective business to the Plaintiff Company 1 and its employees from April 5, 1974; (b) the Plaintiff Company 1 and its employees from June 30, 1976 under the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act for the 1974 No. 4,464,00 won for supply and demand of petroleum in Korea; (c) the Government’s plan on the construction of oil refineries factories in Korea; and (d) it provided information analysis and intellectual property services to the Plaintiff Company 1 for the 1974, 1974, 76,000 won for the 1976, 4,000 won for the 1976, 1976, 25,077 won for the 1966, 300, 1976, 196, 25,77, 200 won for the 196, 306, 1976.

2. Examining the evidence of the court below based on the records, it is hard to find out that the testimony of Non-Party 2 is consistent with the above facts of the court below's approval. However, even if the testimony is based on the testimony, it is extremely clear and abstract that Non-Party 1 was aware that Non-Party 1 had conducted the business of investigating the market value of petroleum sales in Korea for the commencement of the business of producing and selling petroleum products at the Korean branch of the plaintiff company, and conducting a survey on the realistic possibility of installing a oil refining plant in the future, and it is not sufficient to find out the specific contents of the business and its performance of Non-Party 1's business and it is not sufficient to determine whether the above salaries and shipping equipment paid as above are appropriate for the cost of performing the business, and there is no evidence of the court below to find that Non-Party 1, Non-Party 2 and 3 provided the plaintiff's domestic source income to the plaintiff company's branch of the plaintiff company's domestic source income and the plaintiff's domestic source income is reasonably distributed to the plaintiff company's domestic source income (the plaintiff's total product).

c. If so, the above measures of the court below cannot avoid criticism that there was an unlawful violation of the rules of evidence established by a remote material without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the above points.

2. Ex officio determination

The main text of the judgment must be specified and must be identified by the main text itself (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu294 delivered on March 8, 1983). The main text of the judgment of the original court is that the defendant's decision was made on September 27, 1979;

(1) Of the dispositions imposing KRW 1,190,056 of the corporate tax of the business year 1974, the tax amount corresponding to KRW 142,411,582 of the tax base amount;

(2) the amount of tax corresponding to KRW 7,098,760 of the corporate tax base of the business year 1975 and the amount of tax corresponding to KRW 2,217,193 and the amount of tax defense tax corresponding to KRW 344,127;

(3) the amount equivalent to KRW 18,456,831 of the tax base amount of the disposition imposing KRW 5,599,305 of the corporate tax for the business year 1976 and the defense tax amounting to KRW 738,616 of the disposition;

(4) the tax amount corresponding to KRW 45,138,690 of the tax base amount of the corporate tax of the business year 1977 and the defense tax of KRW 1,229,446;

(5) Each disposition imposing 8,121,439 won in corporate tax for the business year 1978 and defense tax amounting to 1,394,566 won shall be revoked in excess of the tax base amount corresponding to 51,35,696 won.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed. It is decided that this order is dismissed. This part of the above amount of tax imposed by the defendant is not clear to what extent the tax is cancelled, and the cancelled part cannot be specified, and therefore the dismissed part cannot be separated, so it cannot be deemed that the above order is illegal that it lacks clarity as a judgment.

Therefore, the appeal of this case is with merit and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)