(a) The case holding that bonuses and vehicle maintenance subsidies paid by the company to the retired workers who are executives shall be included in the earned income which forms the basis for the calculation of retirement allowances under Article 34 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1295 of May 1, 190), Article 13 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 21 (1) 1 (a) of the Income Tax Act, Article 43 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 190)

(b) Method of calculating gains on transfer where either the transfer value or acquisition value is unclear;

(c) Where a corporation transfers assets acquired on or before December 31, 1974, the method of determining the acquisition value.

(a) The case holding that bonuses and vehicle maintenance subsidies paid by the company to the retired workers who are executives shall be included in the earned income which forms the basis for the calculation of retirement allowances under Article 34 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1295 of May 1, 190), Article 13 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 21 (1) 1 (a) of the Income Tax Act, Article 43 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 190)

B. In the interpretation of Article 59-2(3) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4282 of Dec. 31, 1990) and Article 124-2(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12878 of Dec. 30, 1989), where either the transfer value or the acquisition value is unclear, the transfer value or the acquisition value of the special surtax shall be calculated on the basis of the standard market price.

C. According to Article 7 of the Addenda of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 7464 of Dec. 31, 1974), even if the transfer value of assets acquired by a corporation before or after December 31, 1974 can be known, the value assessed in accordance with the current market price on Jan. 1, 1975 should be verified first for the purpose of calculating transfer margin. If the current market price cannot be known on Jan. 1, 1975, this constitutes a case where the acquisition value under Article 59-2 (3) of the same Act is unclear.

A. Article 16 subparagraph 8 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 34 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12995 of May 1, 1990), Article 13 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 21 (1) 1 (a) of the Income Tax Act, Article 43 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194 of December 31, 1990). Article 59-2 (3) / (b) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4282 of December 31, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu1322 delivered on March 27, 1990 (Gong1990, 997). Supreme Court Decision 86Nu201 delivered on November 22, 198 (Gong1989, 25). Supreme Court Decision 88Nu9800 delivered on August 8, 198 (Gong1989, 1375), Supreme Court Decision 89Nu6426 delivered on October 23, 1990 (Gong190, 2451). Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6269 delivered on December 13, 198 (Gong1989, 118).

[Defendant-Appellant] Hansung Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellant

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu16807 delivered on March 11, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first and second grounds for appeal

In light of the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff paid 125,135,00 retirement allowance to the non-party 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as "retirement allowance") who were employed as a shareholder, and included it in deductible expenses for the calculation of income for each business year. The plaintiff paid monthly average wage (the monthly average wage of non-party 1 is gold 1,50,000 and monthly average wage of non-party 2 is 1,200,000) to the above retiring as wages not for profit disposal, and withheld the income tax from the above 30,000 won per month for vehicle maintenance expenses, and it did not constitute "the above 19,000,000 won per month for the above retired worker" under Article 16 subparagraph 8 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 16 subparagraph 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which does not constitute "the above 9,0000,0000 won per month for the above retired worker's salary payment" under Article 9 of the same Act.

2. On the third ground for appeal

Article 59-2(3) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4282 of Dec. 31, 1990) and Article 124-2(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12878 of Dec. 30, 1989), which provides for the method of calculating gains on transfer of special surtax, where either the transfer value or the acquisition value is unclear, the above two values shall be calculated based on the standard market price. Furthermore, Article 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 7464 of Dec. 31, 1974) which provides for the method of calculating gains on transfer of special surtax, even if the transfer value of the assets acquired before or after December 31, 1990 can be known, if the transfer value is confirmed based on the market price as of Dec. 1, 1975 and if it is unclear, it shall be interpreted that the current market price is determined as 9.24.

In the above purport, the court below is just in holding that since the plaintiff acquired the real estate of this case before December 31, 1974, and the market price as of January 1, 1975 is unknown, the acquisition price shall be the standard market price as of January 1, 1975, and the transfer price shall be the standard market price as of January 1, 1975, the transfer price shall be the standard market price as of January 21, 198, the transfer price shall be calculated based on the transfer price as of January 2

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

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)