The nature of the good offices fees paid in return for arranging and introducing from shippers of loading and unloading;

The good offices fees paid in return for the introduction from the shippers of loading and unloading shall be treated as entertainment expenses under Article 18 of the former Corporate Tax Act in that a corporation shows that the introduction of loading and unloading works by the company from the relatives of the shippers is an unofficial honorarium paid by the company.

Suwon Korea Shipping Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Busan Head of Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 74Gu80 delivered on September 10, 1975

The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's appeal are all dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the part arising from the plaintiff's appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff, while the part arising from the defendant's appeal shall be borne by

The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1 (the supplementary ground of appeal is after the expiration of the period for submitting the grounds of appeal) is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the so-called referral fee paid in compensation for the introduction from the shipper of loading and unloading work is different in nature from the wage, and it should be viewed as the expense belonging to the category of non-designated donations and entertainment expenses as stipulated in Article 18 of the Corporate Tax Act as deductible expenses at the time of this case. However, the amount of referral fee for the business year 1971 and 1972 of the plaintiff company at the time of original sale is already appropriated and disposed of in full up to the permissible limit of non-designated donations and entertainment expenses permitted under the above Corporate Tax Act at the time of disposition of imposing corporate tax for each business year, and it cannot be treated as deductible expenses for each business year of this case of the plaintiff company. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below on the premise that it should be treated as entertainment expenses under Article 18 of the former Corporate Tax Act for the introduction of the loading and unloading work of the plaintiff company as the child of the owner, and it should not be recognized as unlawful under the premise that the legal reasoning of the above Article 18 of the law.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the above conciliation fees cannot be treated as losses for each business year of the Plaintiff Company, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant rendered a disposition imposing the additional collection of the corporate tax of this case beyond the necessary scope of judgment to the effect that it is justifiable.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

The court below recognized the fact that the defendant already treated the plaintiff company as deductible expenses up to the limit of the permissible limit of non-designated donations and entertainment expenses under Article 18 of the former Corporate Tax Act when the defendant imposed corporate tax for the business year of 1971 and the business year of 1972, it can be deemed that the contents of the evidence No. 2-1 and No. 2-1 of the evidence No. 2-1 adopted by the court below are considered to have been comprehensively taken into account the whole purport of the pleading, and therefore, it is not illegal to recognize

The grounds of appeal by the defendant shall be examined.

In light of the adopted evidence, the court below reviewed the facts that the plaintiff company paid for work from the workers employed in order to conduct the business in the actual business year of 1971 and paid for the work in return for the provision of labor, so if the facts are so, it is just to determine that the above amount should be deductible expenses under the Corporate Tax Act, and that the defendant's brokerage fees paid by the plaintiff company should not be deemed to be deductible expenses under Article 18 of the Corporate Tax Act, because it cannot be deemed to be deductible expenses under the provision of the Act. The court below determined that the defendant's brokerage fees paid by the plaintiff company as deductible expenses under Article 18 of the Corporate Tax Act shall not exceed the limit of deductible expenses under the provision of the Act.

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's appeal are dismissed. Of the costs of appeal, the part arising from the plaintiff's appeal and the part arising from the defendant's appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Il-hee (Presiding Justice)