A. Whether emission dues prescribed in Article 19-2 of the Environmental Conservation Act are included in deductible expenses (negative)

(b) Whether the tax authority determines losses falling under subparagraph 5 of Article 16 of the Corporate Tax Act as losses under subparagraph 4 of the same Article and imposes losses on the taxpayer (affirmative)

A. The emission dues under Article 19-2 of the Environmental Conservation Act do not correspond to the "fine, minor fine, administrative fine, additional dues and disposition fee for arrears", which are losses not included in deductible expenses pursuant to Article 16 subparagraph 4 of the Corporate Tax Act, but the "public charges" under subparagraph 5 of the same Article refers to all the public charges imposed by the State or a public organization on the members of the State or a public organization, so the amount of discharge taxation is also a kind of "public charges", which is losses not included in deductible expenses, unless it is prescribed as public charges included in deductible expenses under Article 25 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

B. The original taxation disposition is a procedure to confirm and confirm the contents of the taxation claim established objectively and abstractly by satisfying the taxation requirements stipulated in the law. The subject matter of the taxation disposition disposition lawsuit is the general illegality that is the cause of revocation, and the subject matter of the judgment is the objective existence of the tax base and amount of tax, which are the tax obligations confirmed by the taxation disposition. Thus, even if the taxation authority denies the inclusion of losses calculated by the tax obligor as losses in the calculation of losses in the calculation of losses, inasmuch as it is judged that the loss is not included in the calculation of losses because the loss falls under subparagraph 5 of Article 16 of the Corporate Tax Act, the determination or correction disposition by the tax authority cannot be deemed unlawful.

(a)Article 16(a) of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 19-2(b) of the Environmental Preservation Act;

Supreme Court Decision 78Nu345 delivered on October 14, 1980 (Gong1980, 1330) 85Nu418 delivered on December 10, 1985 (Gong1986,254) 86Nu491 delivered on November 10, 1987 (Gong1988,102) 87Nu647 delivered on April 11, 1989 (Gong1989,758)

Osung Branch Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and one other

Head of Ansan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu1652 delivered on June 20, 1989

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers are examined.

1. On September 16, 1988, the court below held that the corrective disposition of this case, which corrected the tax base and tax amount by imposing corporate tax of KRW 17,884,950 and the defense tax of KRW 3,940,160 on the plaintiff as of September 16, 198, was unlawful, and accepted the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation of the corrective disposition of this case.

In other words, the plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells aggregate sheets. The plaintiff's disposal of pollutants exceeding permissible emission levels under the provisions of Article 14-2 of the Environmental Conservation Act is a non-deductible allowance of 14,457,360 won as emission charges under the provisions of Article 19-2 of the same Act, and the defendant's disposal of pollutants in excess of 57,738,50 won as losses and non-taxation charges under the provisions of Article 19-2 of the same Act are different from the calculation standards of non-taxation charges under the provisions of Article 19-1 of the same Act (including non-taxation charges under the provisions of Article 4 of the same Act; the same shall apply to losses and non-taxation charges under the provisions of Article 6 of the same Act; the same shall apply to losses and non-taxation charges under the provisions of Article 14-1 of the same Act; and the defendant's disposal of pollutants in excess of 57,738,500 won as losses and non-taxation charges under the provisions of the same Act.

2. The judgment of the court below that the discharge dues under Article 19-2 of the Environmental Preservation Act do not constitute "fine, minor fine, fine for negligence, additional dues and expenses for disposition on default," which are losses not included in deductible expenses in accordance with Article 16-4 of the Corporate Tax Act, is justified in light of the comprehensive review of the relevant provisions of the same Act.

However, Article 16 subparagraph 5 of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "public charges other than those as prescribed by the Presidential Decree" (However, Article 9 (3) of the same Act and Article 12 (2) 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act excludes "public charges and public charges" which are included in deductible expenses shall be included in deductible expenses. Article 25 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "public charges" (which is included in deductible expenses) are stated in the following subparagraphs, and Article 16 subparagraph 5 of the same Act does not stipulate as public charges that include emission charges under Article 19-2 of the Environmental Conservation Act as deductible expenses. The "public charges" refers to all public charges imposed compulsorily by the State or a public organization to its members, so the above emission charges shall be deemed as losses not included in deductible expenses.

3. The original taxation disposition is a procedure to confirm and confirm the contents of the taxation claim established objectively and abstractly by satisfying the taxation requirements prescribed by the law. The subject matter of the taxation disposition disposition lawsuit is the illegality which is the cause of revocation, and the subject matter of the adjudication is the objective existence of the tax base and tax amount, which is the tax obligation confirmed by the taxation disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 78Nu435, Oct. 14, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu418, Dec. 10, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 86Nu491, Nov. 10, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 87Nu647, Apr. 11, 1989; etc.). Even if the taxation authority denies the inclusion of losses appropriated as deductible expenses by a corporation which is a taxpayer in accordance with Article 16 subparag. 4 of the Corporate Tax Act, it shall not be deemed that the tax authority's disposition is unlawful as losses or losses.

4. If so, the court below held that the defendant's corrective disposition of this case, which denied the inclusion of the above discharge dues in deductible expenses by judging them as losses not to be included in deductible expenses, is illegal. However, the court below held that the defendant's corrective disposition of this case is illegal without properly examining whether the above discharge dues fall under "public charges", which is losses not included in deductible expenses, such as fines, minor fines, administrative fines, additional charges, and expenses for disposition on default, which are losses not included in deductible expenses. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension and application of the law, and it is obvious that such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the judgment below is not reversed.

5. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)