(a) Criteria for determining whether a taxation claim against the reorganization company is a reorganization claim or a public-interest claim;

(b) The time when income tax to be withheld for recognized contributions is established;

(c) Timing for establishing the corporate tax claim;

(a)whether a taxation claim against the reorganization company becomes a reorganization claim or a public-interest claim under the Company Reorganization Act, shall be determined on the basis of whether the taxation claim has been established (to meet the taxation requirements prescribed by law) before the commencement of the company reorganization procedure;

(b) The income tax to be withheld by the withholding agent with respect to the recognized contributions disposed of as having been paid to the representative with respect to the portion of the corporate income which reverts, shall be determined on the date when the relevant corporation receives the notice of change of income amount.

(c) a corporate tax claim shall enter into force upon the termination of the taxation period;

(a)Article 102 and Article 208 of the Company Reorganization Act; Article 150(1) of the Income Tax Act; Article 198 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act; Article 21(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes;

Supreme Court Decision 63Nu125 delivered on October 31, 1963; 63Nu161 delivered on May 21, 1964; 70Nu154 delivered on April 6, 1971; 66Nu163 delivered on March 7, 1967; 74Nu257 delivered on May 27, 197

Samsung C&G Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and one other

Attorney Gyeong-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 78Gu245 delivered on November 4, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

Whether a taxation claim against the reorganization company becomes a reorganization claim or a public-interest claim under the Company Reorganization Act shall be determined on the basis of whether the taxation claim has been established prior to the commencement of the company reorganization procedure, and as long as a taxation claim against the company has been established prior to the commencement of the company reorganization procedure due to the fulfillment of taxation requirements under the Acts, it shall be reasonable to view that a reorganization claim is a reorganization claim, even if the contents of a taxation

However, according to the facts established by the court below, each tax claim of Class A was imposed by the defendant on bonus income disposed of to the representative with respect to the portion of corporation income accrued during the business year 1975 and 1976 under the Corporate Tax Act. The defendant's delivery of notice of change in income amount to the above recognized portion to the plaintiff while determining the plaintiff's income amount for each business year is around August 16, 197. Under Article 150 (4) of the Income Tax Act and Article 198 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, it shall be deemed that the pertinent corporation was paid on the bonus disposed of under the Corporate Tax Act on the date of receipt of the notice of change in income amount. It is not necessary for the court below to establish the reorganization claim under Article 21 (2) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 22 (2) of the Corporate Tax Act without delay until the date of commencement of reorganization proceedings for the same business year, and it shall not be deemed that the reorganization claim was established for the same reason as in its reasoning.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the plaintiff's total amount of KRW 25,984,573 while selling non-party 1 corporation's 265 tons of 1974 grams of 184 grams of 187. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's total amount of KRW 13,030,072 was delivered to the non-party 1 who acquired the right to claim delivery between October 31, 1975 and March 3, 197. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's disposal of the total amount of KRW 13,072 as deductible expenses for the return of 1975 grams of 197 Gabs of 197 Gabs of 197 Gabs of Gabs of 197 Gabs of Gabs of 197 Gabs of Gabs of 197

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

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)