Enforcement Rule of the former Corporate Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 400), Article 12(2)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 83(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 3319)

Before January 1, 1969, the provisions of Article 33(4) of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 2050 of Dec. 17, 1968) were enforced, there is no legal basis for establishing an order to issue an order to make the difference between the estimated amount and the reported amount of a corporation less than the reported amount of the corporation as a bonus to the representative of the corporation in case of the estimation of corporate income for the purpose of taxation of the Corporate Tax Act. Thus, the provisions of Article 12(2)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 400 of Dec. 30, 1967) and Article 83(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 3319 of Dec. 30, 1967) cannot be deemed to have been enacted without any basis under the Corporate Tax Act at least before January 1, 1969.

Article 33 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 83 of the Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act

68Nu9 delivered on June 25, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 2390 delivered on June 25, 196, Supreme Court Decision 28Nu1901 delivered on June 25, 196)

Cheongong-Un Inc.

Head of North Korean Tax Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing KRW 2,615,503 on the Plaintiff as of July 1, 1969 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

The defendant estimated the government's estimation of the tax base of corporate tax for the business year from January 1, 1967 to December 31, 1968 from January 1, 1968 to December 31 of the same year of the same year and applied the amount of 4,543,958 won (3,06,616 won for the year 1967, and 1,447,342 won for the portion of the year 1968), which is less than the estimated amount and the reported amount of the plaintiff company, to the corporate tax enforcement rule (Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 400) 3 (1967), and the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (Enforcement Decree No. 3319, Nov. 1, 1968) and the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (Enforcement Decree No. 3319, Dec. 30, 196) to the plaintiff company's bonus for the portion of this tax assessment against the plaintiff company's representative.

However, before January 1, 1969, the provision of the Corporate Tax Act (No. 2050, Dec. 17, 1968) Article 33 (4) (this provision is later amended by Act No. 2125, Jul. 31, 1969; hereinafter the same shall apply) was enforced. Before the Government makes a decision of estimation of corporate income for the taxation of corporate tax, there is no legal basis for establishing an order to treat the difference between the estimated amount and the estimated amount of the corporation less than it as the bonus for the representative of the corporation, and therefore, the provisions of the Enforcement Rule No. 12 (2) 3 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 83 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act concerning this provision are not deemed to have been enacted without any basis under the Corporate Tax Act. Accordingly, it is invalid at least in violation of the Corporate Tax Act without the principle of no taxation without the law for the representative of the corporation, at least before the end of the business year in which the plaintiff corporation had already reported the business income amount and the tax amount of this case.

Therefore, in this case where there is no evidence to view that the plaintiff company paid the above amount to its representative individual as a bonus, the plaintiff's claim seeking confirmation of its invalidity is reasonable, and therefore, the lawsuit cost is accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the defendant as the losing party.

Judges Sick-su (Presiding Judge)