Suwon Hypo Co., Ltd. (Attorney Geum Byung-hun, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan Head of Tax Office

August 27, 1975

The Defendant’s imposition of corporate tax of KRW 11,65,137 of the business year from January 1, 1971 to March 31, 1972, exceeds KRW 7,098,286 of the corporate tax of KRW 11,65,137 of the business year, and imposition of KRW 9,970,072 of the Class A earned income in the same year, and imposition of corporate tax of KRW 2,865,97 of the business year from April 1, 1972 to March 31, 1973 of the same business year and imposition of KRW 2,89,097 of the corporate tax of KRW 2,475,07 of the same business year from March 31, 1973 shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be divided into four parts, one of which shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the other three of which shall be borne by the defendant.

The imposition of corporate tax of KRW 11,65,137 for the business year from April 1, 1971 to March 31, 1972, and KRW 9,970,072 for the business year above, KRW 2,865,973 for the business year from April 1, 1972 to March 31, 1973, and KRW 2,475,07 for the business year above shall be revoked, respectively.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant spent 20,820,985 won as a bonus for the business year from April 1, 1971 to March 31, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "1971 business year") to the plaintiff, and processed 11,65,137 won as a corporate tax, and (2) 5,156,415 won as a salary for the business year from April 1, 1972 to June 31, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "1972 business year") and imposed corporate tax 2,865,973 won as a bonus for the representative director of the corporation, and there is no dispute between the parties concerned over the above processed 1971 business year and the income amount for the business year from April 1, 1972 to June 31, 1973.

The plaintiff's above wages recognized as having been processed by the plaintiff company in the defendant are actually disbursed as wages and other expenses for the work of the plaintiff company, and even if there is no one percentage of the processed expenses, the defendant's corporate tax recognized as having been processed as well as the Gap's income tax as being collected in addition to the above processed expenses is illegal and unfair, so it is argued that the defendant's cancellation is sought. Since the defendant's dispute over this, it is argued that the defendant's writing of Gap's evidence No. 12 within Gap's evidence No. 1 and No. 12 without dispute, witness's pathal evidence, witness's pathal witness's testimony and pathal witness's testimony, party member's 30 May 10 and May 30, 1975, the whole purport of the argument is that the plaintiff company is a corporation operating cargo transportation business after obtaining a license from the port management authority under the Port Transport Business Act.

1. In September 15, 1972, the Defendant: (a) acknowledged on September 15, 1972 that the Plaintiff duly paid KRW 114,983,237, which was reported as wage expenditure amount to KRW 26,300; and (b) determined the Plaintiff’s income amount in the pertinent business year to be paid in full; (c) imposed KRW 10,337,466 on and collected the Plaintiff in full; and (d) on September 20, 1973, it recognized that the Plaintiff duly paid KRW 143,194,70, which was reported as wage expenditure amount to the Plaintiff in the business year 1972; and (d) determined it as KRW 32,295,013, which was actually inspected by the Plaintiff in the pertinent business year; and (e) imposed and collected the Plaintiff in full corporate tax year 13,12,727, imposed on and collected the Plaintiff in full.

2. The defendant, based on the data referred to in the prosecutor's office, recognized only the amount of 94,162,352 won as the actual wage paid by the plaintiff to Busan for the business year as the result of the plaintiff's inspection of the certified tax accountant for the corporation, 114,983,237 won reported by the plaintiff as the total wage expenditure amount in the business year 1971, and recognized the amount of 94,162,352 won as the total wage paid by the plaintiff to Busan for the business year of the above business year as the deductible expenses, and imposed the corporate tax stated in the claim as to the above amount of 20,820,985 won as the total wage. The defendant recognized the amount of 14,983,194,70 won as the total wage expenditure amount as the corporate tax reported by the plaintiff as the total wage expenditure amount, and recognized the amount of 138,355 won as the actual amount of corporate tax to be collected as deductible expenses.

3)In the loading and unloading business, the plaintiff company employs workers who are affiliated with the wharf labor at the center of Busan port and most cases. However, there are cases where such workers are directly paid for transporting local exports, etc. to Busan port, other than wharfs, or if such workers are paid for their cargo at the same place as the bonded area designated by customs office, the plaintiff company employs union workers who are affiliated with the wharf labor at the 1971, and employs 94,162,352 won in addition to the above 197, 197, 200, 300, 1700, 400, 1700, 3000, 400,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

4. The defendant's disposition of imposing corporate tax on the plaintiff in the initial business year of 1971 and the business year of 1972 can be recognized that the defendant treated the plaintiff as deductible expenses up to the limit of allowing non-designated donations, entertainment expenses, and other magazines under Article 18 of the Corporate Tax Act, and there is no counter-proof.

According to the above facts, when the defendant imposed tax on the plaintiff, 4,696,944 won which is the sum of the above 3,696,944 won in the business year of 1971 and 4,500,415 won which is the sum of the above 3,500,415 won in the business year of 1972, which is the sum of the above 3,696,944 won in the business year of 1971, and the above 3,500,415 won in the business year of 1972, which is the sum of the above 3, (a) (b) (b) and (c) shall be treated as losses of the Corporate Tax Act, since it is evident that the actual company received labor from the individuals employed by the plaintiff in order to perform its business in each of the above business years, and the so-called brokerage commission stated in the above 3, (d) and (c) shall be treated as compensation for the plaintiff's agent.

Therefore, the above recognition fees for the plaintiff company should be calculated as non-designated contributions for each business year. The above recognition fees for the plaintiff company shall not be treated as losses for each business year of the plaintiff company with respect to the amount of non-designated contributions permitted under the Corporate Tax Act in the first determination process of imposing corporate tax. For this reason, the amount of corporate tax for each business year of the plaintiff company shall not be collected as losses. For this reason, the amount of corporate tax shall be calculated as the total amount of income at the time when the defendant would impose corporate tax for the original plaintiff. The sum of the above recognition fees for the business year shall be calculated as the total amount of income, 426,041 won (26,302,00 won per original income + 16,124,000 won per business year + 17,435,752 won per business year, and the amount of corporate tax for the defendant shall not be charged as the total amount of corporate tax for the year of 1971, the amount of corporate tax for the year 1971, the total amount of tax amount for the plaintiff 2397,394.38

Next, in relation to the disposition imposing Class A tax on the plaintiff, the defendant is found to have spent the processed amount of 20,820,985 won as wages in the business year 1971, and the above processed amount of 5,156,415 won as wages in the business year 1972 as bonus amount to the representative director in accordance with the income amount of the corporation, and imposing Class A income tax such as the written order is not the processed amount, and the above amount recognized as the processed amount is not the processed amount, but the substantial wage and mediation fee is not the processed amount, and the total amount of the processed amount is not the processed amount, and it is also recognized as above. Accordingly, the case imposing Class A income tax on the representative director should be considered as the bonus in the business year 1971, and it cannot be viewed as unjust without further review.

Therefore, the portion on which the corporate tax and the Class A income tax are imposed on the premise that the plaintiff paid the processed wage is subject to the disposition of additional collection of corporate tax, the portion exceeding KRW 7,098,286 of the disposition of additional collection of corporate tax for the business year 1971, the portion exceeding KRW 289,097 of the disposition of additional imposition of corporate tax for the business year 1972, and each disposition of imposing the Class A income tax for the business year 1972 is illegal. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this case is reasonable within the above scope of recognition, and this case's claim is accepted, and it is dismissed, and the remainder of the claim is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Articles 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act.

September 10, 1975

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)