(a) Effect of a taxation disposition which is erroneous in examining and determining the tax base amount;

(b) Whether a notification of data on tax evasion prepared by an investigative agency can be one of the data on-site investigation;

(c) Time of accrual of the income subject to the income tax; and

(d) Whether an interest claim included in reorganization claims is a right to receive income, and the maturity thereof is confirmed;

(a) Where the tax office intends to impose income tax on a certain person, it shall determine the tax base amount on the correct basis obtained by such methods as voluntary declaration, field investigation, written investigation, and estimated investigation, and shall calculate the tax base amount, and where the tax base amount and the tax amount are determined and imposed in a flexible manner without any grounds, such determination and imposition shall be deemed to be null and void as it is significant and obvious, inasmuch as such defect is grave and obvious, or where such determination and imposition is made in such an investigation procedure as a mistake of taxable object, error in the method of investigation, error in calculating the tax amount, etc., the grounds for revocation shall be

B. The notice of data on tax evasion sent by the investigation agency to the tax office should be based on reasonable data, unless the fact of tax evasion is proved by the fact of tax evasion itself, and thus, it cannot be the data to reverse the legality of the taxation disposition as a judgment document by the investigation agency. However, in cases where the data, such as account books and other documentary evidence, which can support the legality of the taxation disposition, are included in the notification data, such notification may also be made as one of the data on the

C. In order to find that income subject to income tax has been realized, it is not required until the income has been realized, and at least the right to generate income is considerably mature in the possibility of its realization, and it is sufficient to determine whether the right to generate income has been established merely as income subject to income tax, and it is reasonable to determine whether the right to generate income has become final and conclusive with a certain fact by comprehensively taking into account the specific nature and contents of individual rights, legal and various conditions.

D. Even if a creditor received a check of shares in an amount equivalent to the principal and interest of a loan from a company that is a debtor, if the above company, upon receiving a decision to commence corporate reorganization from the debtor company, receives all the principal and interest of the loan from the above company, and is paid over several years in accordance with the plan to repay the principal and interest of the above company, the above interest claim cannot be deemed to have become final

(a) Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 118 (c) of the Income Tax Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 80Nu223 delivered on May 11, 1982, 85Nu881 delivered on December 9, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu881 delivered on December 9, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 79Nu296 delivered on April 22, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 79Nu441 delivered on February 10, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu26 delivered on June 11, 1985

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Hongsung Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu641 delivered on March 26, 1986

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. The plaintiff's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

If the tax office intends to impose income tax on a certain person, it shall determine the tax base and calculate the tax base based on the accurate basis obtained by the methods such as voluntary declaration, field investigation, written investigation, and estimated investigation as prescribed by the Income Tax Act. If the tax base and the tax amount are determined in a flexible manner without any basis by abandoning the aforementioned methods of investigation completely, it shall be deemed that the defect is null and void as it is grave and obvious. However, if it is found that there is an unlawful act such as simple mistake of the taxable object, erroneous selection of the method of investigation, and error in calculating the amount of tax in the investigation procedure, it shall be deemed that the reason for revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Nu223, May 11, 1982; 85Nu81, Dec. 9, 1986). In addition, the notice of tax evasion sent to the tax office by the investigation agency cannot be supported by the legality of the taxation disposition as a document of the investigation agency, or if it is not proven by any reasonable material, it shall be considered as one of the above evidence 188.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the following facts based on the evidence adopted by the head of the Public Security Headquarters as follows: (a) as a result of investigating the suspicion of tax evasion against the plaintiff on April 19, 1982, the plaintiff extended 50,000 won to the non-party Lee Young-hun on November 16, 1981 at 30% per month; (b) 30,000,000 won per annum to the non-party Kang Young-young on January 15, 1982; and (c) 600,000,000 won per annum as well as 600,000 won per annum; and (d) 300,000,000 won per annum as well as 30,000,000 won per annum, which included the above facts that the plaintiff violated the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and thus, the Daejeon District Commissioner of the National Tax Service did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds for the plaintiff's tax evasion.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the litigation performer.

In order to find that income which is subject to income tax has been realized, it is not necessary until the income has been realized, and at least it is sufficient to determine whether the right to generate income has become final and conclusive to a high level of maturity as a result of its realization, which is a view that members of the party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 79Nu296, Apr. 22, 1980; 79Nu441, Jun. 11, 1985; 79Nu441, Jun. 21, 1985; 85Nu26, Jun. 11, 1985; 2009Nu446, Jun. 11, 1985).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the amount of interest claim 19,40,000 won (2,60,000 interest accrued for 80 years and interest 16,80,000 won accrued for 81 years) against the plaintiff's purification company, which the defendant used as the ground for taxation, including 30,000,000 won as part of the loan principal for the above company, and received a check of a unit value of 49,40,000 won in total face value, but the above loan principal and interest were included in the fixed reorganization claim and the debt repayment plan for the above reorganization company from 1987 to 191, and there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the amount of interest accrued for 81 years and no interest accrued for 16,80,000 won for 81 years and no interest accrued for 16,800,000 won for the above company.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)