The case holding that a corporation's justifiable cause not to recover the provisional payment paid to a person with a special relationship or objectively proves that it is to be recovered;

In determining the corporate tax base, the provisional payment paid to a person having special relation with a corporation, which has not been recovered until the special relation is extinguished, shall be deemed disposed of to the person to whom such special relation belongs, and shall not be disposed of as above, if it is objectively proved that there exists any justifiable reason not recovered or that such provisional payment will be recovered. Thus, if the land owned by an employee of a corporation and a corporation is provided as a physical collateral for more than the provisional payment of the corporation, and the land owned by an employee at the time of termination of the special relation with the corporation was acquired as a claim for the amount exceeding the above provisional payment against the corporation, the corporation shall not be included in the corporation's gross income for the business year, since the above provisional payment shall not be included in the corporation's gross income.

Articles 3, 20 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 46 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 94-2 of the former General Rules on Corporate Tax (amended before March 1, 198) 1-2-73

Universal bus Co., Ltd.

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

1. Of the imposition of wage and salary income tax of KRW 606,806,310 and its defense tax of KRW 121,361,260 against the Plaintiff on November 20, 1987, the part that exceeds KRW 7,508,337 and the defense tax of KRW 1,501,667 shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of KRW 606,806,310, and the defense tax of KRW 121,341,260, imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on November 20, 1987, shall be revoked.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The above disposition of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's total amount of 80 U.S. income tax stated in the 1987.11.20. The above disposition of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's 8.00 U.S. dollars No. 1 and No. 4 were no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 7-2, Eul evidence No. 9, and Eul evidence No. 1 and No. 97. The above disposition of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's 8.0 U.S. dollars No. 1 and the non-party 2's 98.m. 1 and the non-party 2's 98 U.S. dollars No. 97 were different from the above disposition of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's 9.m. 98 U.S. dollars No.

Meanwhile, according to Article 14(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the provisions pertaining to the calculation of tax base in the tax-related Acts shall apply according to the substance, notwithstanding the name or form of the income, profit, property, act or transaction. According to Article 3(2) of the Corporate Tax Act, the provisions pertaining to the calculation of the amount of taxable income subject to corporate tax shall apply according to the substance of transaction, regardless of its title. Under Article 14(1)2 and Article 14(2)1 of the former General Rules on Corporate Tax 1-2-7(3) of the former Act, if the provisional payment, etc. arising from fund transactions with a person with a special relationship, which was not recovered until the special relationship is extinguished without justifiable cause, is deemed to have been disposed of as of the date of termination of the special relationship, but it is objectively proved that it will be recovered (the amended basic rules on corporate tax also stipulate the same contents, and newly establishes Article 3(5) of the same Act, and subparagraph 1 of the same Article provides for a set-off against the claim in question.

2. The plaintiff, at the time when he was employed as the representative director of the plaintiff, provided the land of this case owned by the non-party as a physical collateral for the plaintiff's debt against the non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party bank (hereinafter only the non-party bank), and set up 10 collateral mortgages with a total of 14,439,147,540 won and 750,000 won with respect to the above land, but on October 20, 1986, the procedure of voluntary auction was commenced at the request of the above non-party bank, and on July 26, 1988, after the non-party resigned from the above representative director, the above land was knocked and appropriated for the repayment of the plaintiff's debt of 3,737,575,641 won, and thus the plaintiff bears the liability for reimbursement of the above provisional payment to the non-party.

However, the general provisions of the above-mentioned general provisions of corporate tax are contents consistent with the substance over form principle under the Framework Act on National Taxes and the Corporate Tax Act. Thus, this can be a single material in the application and interpretation of the Corporate Tax Act. Therefore, if the provisional payment paid to a person with a special relationship, which has not been recovered until the special relationship is extinguished, is deemed to have been disposed of to the person to whom the special relationship belongs, and thus, it should be added to gross income. However, if it is objectively proven that there is a justifiable reason not recovered or that it is recovered, it shall not be

그러므로 원고가 소외 오창균에게 지급한 위 금 1,092,592,255원의 가지급금을 같은 소외인이 대표이사직을 사임할 때까지 회수하지 아니한 데에 정당한 이유가 있거나 또는 객관적으로 회수할 가능성이 있는지 여부에 관하여 보건대, 앞서 본 갑 제5호증, 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제6호증의 2,65(경매신청서 및 경매개시결정), 같은 호증의 67 내지 70(경매조서, 경매기일조서, 경락허가결정, 대금교부표), 증인 안무희의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제6호증의 3 내지 24(각 약속어음), 같은 호증의 25 내지 28(각 어음거래약정서), 같은 호증의 29내지 34(당좌차월약정서 및 각 차월추가약정서), 같은 호증의 35 내지 44(각 지급보증약정서), 같은 호증의 63(임대계약서), 변론의 전취지에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 같은 호증의 45 내지 51(각 근저당권설정계약서), 같은 호증의 52 내지 56(각 경매계약서), 같은 호증의 57 내지 62(각 추가근저당권설정계약서), 같은 호증의 66(감정평가서)의 각 기재에 위 증인의 증언 및 변론의 전취지를 종합해 보면, 소외 오창균 소유이던 이 사건 토지에 관하여 1985.5.29.부터 1986.11.17.까지 사이에 위 소외인과 원고가 연대채무자로 되고, 위 소외은행이 근저당권자로 된 채권최고액 합계 금 12,820,000,000원 및 미화 750,000불인 7건의 근저당권과 원고가 채무자로 되고 소외 김정수 등 채권자들이 근저당권자로 된 채권최고액 합계 금 1,619,147,540원인 3건의 근저당권이 각 설정되어 있었고(그 이외에도 2건의 근저당권이 설정되어 있었으나 이는 원고와는 관계없는 것이었고, 위 소외 김정수가 근저당권자로 된 근저당권설정등기는 1986.1.19. 말소되었다), 위 소외은행은 1986.10.20. 위 근저당권에 의하여 담보된 합계금 8,415,646,548원의 채권을 청구채권으로 하여 이 사건 토지와 지상건물에 대한 임의경매신청을 하였는데, 위 청구채권액 중 소외 오창균 개인의 채무는 금 60,000,000원 뿐이고 나머지 금액은 모두 실질적으로 원고의 채무인데 근저당권설정계약시나 어음거래약정시에 채권자인 소외은행이 토지소유자인 원고를 연대채무자로 할 것을 요구하여 위 소외인이 연대채무자로 되어 있었던 사실, 그 후 이 사건 부동산과 그 지상건물은 1988.7.26. 경락대금 7,000,000,000원(이 사건 토지분 대금은 4,098,920,000원, 지상건물분 대금은 2,901,080,000원이었다)에 경락되었고, 그 경락대금과 이에 대한 지연이자 금 19,849,320원에서 경매비용 금 39,360,900원을 공제한 금 6,980,488,420원 중 이 사건 토지에 대한 부분 금 4,087,494,799원(6,980,488,420원x4,098,920,000/7,000,000,000)은 위 토지에 대한 미납부지방세 금 6,723,190원과 위 소외인 개인의 소외 한일은행에 대한 채무 금 335,109,589원의 변제에 충당되고 그 잔액 금 3,745,662,020원은 경매채권자인 위 소외은행에게 교부되었는데 소외은행의 채권 중 위 소외인 개인에 대한 채권액은 위에서 본 60,000,000원과 이에 대한 지연손해금 2,004,109원이었으므로 이 사건 토지의 경락대금은 적어도 금 3,683,657,911원(3,745,662,020원-62,004,109원)이 원고의 위 소외은행에 대한 채무의 변제의 충당된 사실을 인정할 수 있고 달리 이를 좌우할 증거는 없는바, 위 인정사실에 의하면 소외 오창균과 원고와의 특수관계(대표이사)가 소멸할 당시 같은 소외인 이 사건 토지는 원고의 위 가지급금액보다 훨씬 많은 액수의 채무에 관해 실질적으로 물상담보로 제공되어 있었고, 그 후 위 토지의 경락으로 위 소외인은 원고에 대하여 위 가지급금을 초과하는 액수의 구상채권을 갖게 되었다고 할 것(이는 위에서 본 기본통칙에서도 규정하고 있는 바와 같이 당해 채권과 상계가능한 채무가 있는 경우에 해당하고, 피고 주장과 같이 원고에 대하여 위 구상채권의 현실적인 청구가 없었고, 또 원고의 장부에 이를 계상하고 있지 않다고 하여 달리 볼 것이 아니다)이므로 원고가 위 가지급금을 위 소외인으로부터 회수하지 아니한 데에는 정당한 사유가 있었을 뿐 아니라 객관적으로 이를 회수할 것임이 입증되는 경우라고 할 것이고, 따라서 위 가지급금은 원고의 위 사업년도의 익금에 산입할 수 없는 것이었다고 할 것이므로 이를 위 사업년도의 원고의 익금에 산입하고 그 귀속자인 위 소외인에 대한 상여로 처분한 피고의 조치는 위에서 본 실질과세의 원칙에 위배되는 것이라고 할 것이다.

However, unlike the above disposition of this case, since the above provisional payment was paid as interest of bonds and its creditor is unclear, it should be excluded from deductible expenses (in addition to gross income) in accordance with Article 16 subparagraph 11 of the Corporate Tax Act, and at the same time, pursuant to the proviso of Article 94-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, it should be disposed of as bonus to the above non-party, who is the representative, pursuant to the proviso of Article 94-2 (1) of the same Act, so the disposition of this case is justifiable. However, although the above provisional payment was made as interest of bonds, the testimony by the council of the witness security corresponding thereto is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it

Therefore, if the above provisional payment amount is calculated in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations as well as the defense tax amount of the above Nonparty’s wage and salary income for the business year in which the Plaintiff is liable to withhold and pay, excluding the above provisional payment amount from the wage and salary income of the non-party in the above business year, the wage and salary income amount shall be KRW 7,508,337, and the defense tax amount shall be KRW 1,501,667, such as

3. If so, the part of the disposition of this case which exceeds the above tax amount of the party member's recognition shall be revoked in an unlawful manner. The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the proviso of Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act to the

Judges Go Jin (Presiding Judge)