The meaning of Article 3 of the Corporate Tax Act that the income actually accrues.

The meaning of Article 3 of the Corporate Tax Act that the income actually reverts to the Plaintiff includes not only the case where the income is actually earned but also the case where the status or eligibility of the future income is placed. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff sold the right to refund customs duties to another person on the ground that the refund procedure has ever been completed, the above right to refund is owned by the Plaintiff as the right owned by the Plaintiff, and the ownership

Article 3 of the Corporate Tax Act

Sung Forestrycraft Co., Ltd., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

A litigation performer, spawn, Kim Jong-han, who is the director of the Nam-gu Office of Education

Seoul High Court Decision 73Gu227 delivered on December 3, 1974

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined (the grounds of appeal are considered to the extent that the grounds of appeal submitted within the statutory period are added).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff's act of disposing of 23,038,640 won by adding the refund amount to the plaintiff's gross income for the pertinent business year and added 18,541,207 won to the plaintiff as corporate tax according to the plaintiff's explanation of the refund data of the Incheon Customs Office that the plaintiff had been refunded 23,03,640 won from the above Incheon Customs office from April 1971 to September of the same year, and determined that the above refund amount was made by using the plaintiff's 1,20.B.C., which had already been paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff's main business for export and import such as snow, etc., and that the plaintiff's act of selling 1,541,207 won should be viewed as the sale of the above refund money to the non-party 3's company's company's company's revenue in the above case of this case's use of the above 1,000 won.

On the other hand, according to the evidence of the court below's ruling, the above fact-finding of the court below is acceptable, and in light of the reasoning of the court below, even if the court below sold the right to claim the refund of customs duties, etc. to the non-party to the non-party to the counter-party to the counter-party, the right to claim the refund of the customs duties, etc. to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to whom the above non-party to the non-party to the counter-party to the counter-party to the counter-party to the plaintiff was held as the right to claim the refund of the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the plaintiff's title

However, in this case, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the claim for repayment of a large amount of the refund amount of KRW 23,038,640 to the non-party 20 won and KRW 838,000 on the part of the non-party 1. The Plaintiff’s transfer of the claim for repayment of a large amount of the refund amount of KRW 23,038,640 to the non-party 20 to the non-party 20 won constitutes a case-by-case case, even if there is any difficulty in the procedure due to the need to prepare several documents at the time of the claim for refund, and if examining the evidence of the court below, the Plaintiff’s delegation of the procedure for the claim for the refund of this case to the non-party 23,038,640 on the part of the non-party 1, it is acceptable to find the facts of the court below that the whole amount of the refund amount received by the employees of the above large company belongs to the plaintiff, but there is no illegality in the rules of evidence.

All arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Yu Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)