Whether the amount of voluntary waiver of credit constitutes an omission of income amount

It shall be deemed that there was an agreement to reduce the contents of the initial agreement as long as the bonds cannot be deemed to have been mature and finalized to the extent that they are highly feasible, and therefore the initial disposition imposed by deeming the omission of sales

Article 15 of the Corporate Tax Act: Scope of Gains

1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The order of the court of first instance shall be corrected on February 1, 2004 from " February 2, 2004" to " February 2, 2004."

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition on February 2, 2004 (the date of the disposition stated in the application for correction of the purport of the claim as of February 1, 2004, seems to be the date of the correction of the claim as of February 1, 2004, referred to as “the date of February 2, 2004” as of February 2, 2004) revoked the disposition of imposition of corporate tax (including additional tax) for the portion belonging to 439,882,404 won for the business year 201, for the portion belonging to 238,869,482 won for the business year 202, for the amount belonging to 238,869,482 won, value-added tax (including additional tax) for the second period of February 1, 200, for the first period of 45,345,300 won for the second period of February 1, 2001, for second period of February 222001,30305 won for 305 won.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows 2. 3. 1. 3. 1. 3. 1. 4. 4. 1. 4. 1. 4. 1. 1. 1. 1. 4. 7. 7. 1. "..................." ... "........, the plaintiff agreed to convert the credit sales for which 120 days have elapsed from the due date to the loan for consumption between 00.0 ......... the plaintiff paid the total amount of the interest agreed by 00 ..... .... the plaintiff received only 17,450, 572 won among the interest agreed on 199. 2. 1. 4. 7, 2000 and exempted the entire interest from the payment after the due date."

2. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a domestic corporation established by 100% investment by ○○○, a company that engages in the business of selling blood and booms related to kidne disease and its expendable items.

(2) With respect to the Plaintiff’s report on corporate tax for the business year of 198-202 and value-added tax for the pertinent business year, the Defendant acquired 5 billion won (the actual payment shall be 4,869,346,263 won) from ○○○○ on June 12, 1997 and appropriated the depreciation costs as business rights; 4,129,346,265 won in total as 70, 200, 296, 300, 360, 296, 300, 360, 296, 296, 300, 296, 306, 300, 296, 200, 306, 306, 306, 300, 200, 296, 306, 306, 306, 200, 360, 306, 9, 36,

C. On April 27, 2004, the plaintiff filed an appeal by asserting that the above disposition of imposition by the defendant is unfair. On February 3, 2005, the National Tax Tribunal accepted the plaintiff's argument on the issue (1) and decided to rectify the corporate tax base and tax amount by including the plaintiff's argument on the issue in deductible expenses.

D. Accordingly, the Defendant corrected corporate tax against the Plaintiff at KRW 2,669,596,173 for the business year of 2001, and KRW 2,498,029,024 for the business year of 202 (the value-added tax did not change).

E. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case and sought revocation of the corporate tax for the business year 201, the amount of the corporate tax for the business year 439,882,404, the amount of the corporate tax for the business year 2002, the amount of the corporate tax for the business year 2001, the amount of the corporate tax for the business year 13,61,700, the value-added tax for the second period of 2000, the amount of 45,345,300 for the first period of 201, the amount of 48,222,450 for the second period of 201, the amount of 43,320,050 for the first period of 202, and the amount of 35,63,050 for the second period of 202 (hereinafter referred to as the "the disposition of this case").

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5 through 9, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 3 through 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case shall be revoked, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be just in conclusion, and all appeals by the defendant shall be dismissed without merit, but it is obvious that " February 1, 2004" in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance is a clerical error of " February 2, 2004" and it is so decided as per Disposition.