Whether the bill of exchange is extended and the interest corresponding thereto can be deducted from the sales commission.

Whether the place of business is able to deduct the interest corresponding thereto from the sales commission by issuing bills in the name of the place of business after the credit sales, paying the sales amount, extending the due date of bills;

Article 19 (Scope of Losses)

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 115,353,060 on March 26, 2004, exceeding KRW 60,871,350 on the disposition of imposition of KRW 115,35,06 on the corporate tax for the business year of 1998, exceeding KRW 369,86,00 on the disposition of imposition of KRW 431,526,270 on May 2, 2004, exceeding KRW 369,86,00 on the disposition of imposition of KRW 426,40,850 on the corporate tax for the business year of 200, exceeding KRW 378,763,920 on the disposition of imposition of KRW 465,47,400 on the corporate tax for the business year of 201, exceeding KRW 416,803,970 on the corporate tax for each business year, exceeding KRW 96,970,90 on the corporate tax amount of KRW 2096.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court in this case is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, with the exception of adding the following judgments to the last part of Paragraph 2(1)(b) for the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the reasoning of the judgment in this case is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act,

The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff paid not only the cash deposit but also the sales commission for the bill deposit portion, if the payment of the bill under the name of the OO business office is delayed, the claim for damages for delay under Article 14 of the contract of this case shall be determined. Therefore, the plaintiff's failure to set off the outstanding amount and overdue interest at priority when the sales commission is paid and appropriated for the payment of the outstanding amount and overdue interest constitutes an act of unreasonably reducing the plaintiff's profit.

According to the statement in Eul evidence 6, it is recognized that the payment of the sales commission under Article 9 (2) 2 of the contract of this case is in cash and the payment of the deposit in cash is made in the bill as of the following day for calculating the day after the average settlement of the bill profits ("resolution statement" seems to be a clerical error in the settlement statement). Thus, the payment in this case can be issued and deposited in the name of the OO office because the OO office received the bill as the sales payment from the other party to the transaction and the bill is issued and deposited in the name of the OO office because the bill is not received.

However, as a matter of the sales policy, whether or not the Plaintiff pays the fees for the subsequent payment of bills can choose a way to increase the appearance of sales to maintain the market share, etc. even if the inventory products are sold on credit rather than leaving up being raised. In conclusion of the instant contract, even if the sale proceeds are not recovered in the reality, the Plaintiff, even if not recovered in the reality of the sale proceeds, shall be deemed to have decided differently in the case of cash payment by paying the fees for the sales activities itself, encouraging the business place to actively engage in business activities, but by paying them as bills with the payment deadline in consideration of the average due date

Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the obligation to deliver the sales proceeds of the OO business was finalized solely on the ground that the Plaintiff paid the sales commission for the deposited portion of the bill including the bill issued by the OO business office, or that the interest rate under Article 14 of the instant contract was generated due to the lapse of the due date for bills issued in the name of the OO business office. Such circumstance alone does not lead to the fact that the sales proceeds of the portion that the O business office failed to receive from the purchaser cannot be deemed to have been actually received, and for the same reason, the Plaintiff did not take measures such as deducting the amount equivalent to the interest corresponding to the extended maturity amount from the sales commission, even if having extended the due date for bills issued by the O business office.”

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed without any justifiable reasons. The judgment of the court of first instance is just and the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition.