Whether the provision of the wrongful calculation panel can be applied to employee low interest loans

In applying the unfair calculation and calculation denial rule to the low interest rate loan to housing employees, whether a person is homeless should be determined according to the ownership of housing on the real estate registration as of the date of loan, unless there are special circumstances.

Article 20 of the former Corporate Tax Act rejection of Wrongful Calculation

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

Defendant 1,32,142,142,150 won, special rural development tax, special rural development tax of 49,390 won, special rural development tax of 815,215,390 won, special rural development tax of 37,063,980 won, special rural development tax of 1995, and special rural development tax of 521,60,215,390 won, special rural development tax of 37,063,980 won, and special rural development tax of 1996, corporate tax of 1996, corporate tax of 521,60,210, special rural development tax of 43,450 on March 15, 200, and special rural development tax of 195, which was imposed by Defendant ○○○ Director for each business year of 1996, which was imposed by March 15, 200.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment in the first instance court, the part against the Plaintiff seeking revocation is revoked. The disposition of imposition of corporate tax of 708,117,893 won on March 22, 1999 against the Plaintiff, the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of 1994,071,603,662 won in the special rural development tax of 47,423,956 won in the business year of 1994 and the special rural development tax of 759,251,222 won in the business year of 195, March 12, 2001, and the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of 34,671,660 won in the special rural development tax, and the special rural development tax of 34,671,60 won in the special rural development tax of 196,503,820,198 won in the business year of 1993, and the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of 00 won in the special rural development tax of 19536,198.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the imposition of the special rural development tax amounting to 43,450 won on February 1, 2002 by Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office on February 1, 2002. The court of the first instance dismissed the relevant claim. Since the Plaintiff did not appeal regarding its part, the imposition of the special rural development tax for the business year 1996 is not included in the subject of the judgment of this court.

2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is that the first instance court's judgment No. 4, No. 9, and No. 5, deleted "the first instance court's judgment No. 5," and "the fourth 13," and "the fourth 13," respectively. In addition, with respect to the plaintiff's national tax appeal, the Director of the National Tax Tribunal decided on July 11, 2001 as to whether a loan to a lender of housing funds within 3 months from the date of acquiring a house, etc. is a loan under the proviso of Article 46 (2) 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and on the other hand, the above defendant did not make a separate decision to correct the relevant tax base and tax amount." Thus, it is identical to the reasoning for the first instance court's judgment, and it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Seoul Administrative Court 2001Gu 39714 (O. 10, 2007)]

1. As to the plaintiff:

A. The portion exceeding KRW 708,117,893 among the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 748,653,690 for the business year 193 on March 22, 1999; ② the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 1,132,142,150 for the business year 194 on March 15, 200; and the imposition of corporate tax of KRW 49,848,070 for the special rural development tax of KRW 1,071,60,603,662, special rural development tax of KRW 47,423,956 for the business year 195; and ③ the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 503,508 for the special rural development tax of KRW 1,071,60 for the business year 195 on March 12, 201; and

B. The portion exceeding KRW 759,563,820 of corporate tax for the business year 1996 on March 15, 2002 and KRW 574,200 of corporate tax for the special rural development tax and KRW 731,951,281 of corporate tax and KRW 563,830 of special rural development tax for the business year 196

Each cancellation shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 95% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

Defendant 1,32,142,142,150 won, special rural development tax, special rural development tax of 49,390 won, special rural development tax of 815,215,390 won, special rural development tax of 37,063,980 won, special rural development tax of 1995, and special rural development tax of 521,60,215,390 won, special rural development tax of 37,063,980 won, and special rural development tax of 1996, corporate tax of 1996, corporate tax of 521,60,210, special rural development tax of 43,450 on March 15, 200, and special rural development tax of 195, which was imposed by Defendant ○○○ Director for each business year of 1996, which was imposed by March 15, 200.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Loans to the Plaintiff’s employees without any house;

(1) On January 6, 1991, the former ○ Bank (hereinafter referred to as the “former ○ Bank”) was merged with the former ○ Bank (hereinafter referred to as the “former ○ Bank”) which operated the banking business by having its head office in ○○○○○○○○○○, and its trade name was changed to the ○○ Bank (hereinafter referred to as the “former ○ Bank”). On May 20, 2002, the trade name was changed to the ○ Bank on May 20, 2002, and the funds required for the acquisition and lease of a house below the national standard housing size prescribed by the Housing Construction Promotion Act have been loaned to the employees without a house (an employee who is not an officer) belonging to the Plaintiff at an annual interest rate lower than the normal interest rate.

(2) The head of ○○○ Tax Office, based on the date of initial loan stated in the "Detailed Statement of Housing Fund Loans" submitted by the Plaintiff around February 199, (1) acquired a house prior to the Plaintiff’s employees and completed the registration of ownership transfer (i.e., where a new house is acquired after acquiring a new house), (2) where a new house is acquired by obtaining a new loan prior to the transfer of a previous house, (3) where a new house is acquired by acquiring a house exceeding the scale of national housing with a loan of a national housing fund, (4) where a new house is acquired after acquiring a house below the scale of national housing with a loan of a national housing fund (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff’s employees who received the loan corresponding to the above through the above 4) on the ground that it is an amount of temporary payment without interest paid to the employees who are related parties, as calculated pursuant to Article 20 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 47 of the same Act.

B. Imposition and reduction of corporate tax for the business year 1993 by the head of ○○ Tax Office

(1) On March 22, 1999, the head of ○○ Tax Office added the amount of income for the business year 1993 to the gross income of KRW 2,093,969,79,798, which is the difference between the interest on low interest on housing and the amount equivalent to the interest calculated on the basis of the monthly interest rate for the current account, and imposed corporate tax of KRW 1,262,487,650 on the Plaintiff (or KRW 907,125,880 on the former ○ Bank, KRW 35,361,770 on the former ○ Bank).

(2) After that, the Plaintiff’s objection, petition for grievance, petition for review, and petition for trial were partly accepted in the course of the initial disposition, and 418,60,160,836,130, and 84,036,130, and 11,191,660, respectively, were reduced in the amount of KRW 513,83,960, and eventually, the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year 193 remains 748,653,690.

[The details of the imposition disposition for the business year of 1993 (the unit: the source, the amount of reduction)]

Initial Disposition

First Revision

(Raising of Objection)

2. Second Correction

(Request for Grievance)

3. Motor Vehicle Correction

(Request for Review)

Final Increase and Decrease

Gu

○ Bank

Date of Disposition

may 22, 1999

August 19, 1999

November 5, 1999

Gross income

1,486,376,675

△△672,181,122

814,195,553

△△85,882,290

728,313,263

Corporate Tax

907,125,880

△△△△10,227,780

496,898,090

△△△53,139,430

43,758,660

43,758,660

△△△63,367,220

Gu

○ Bank

Date of Disposition

may 22, 1999

October 21, 1999

November 5, 1999

June 28, 2000

Gross income

607,593,123

△△△△,268,200

593,324,923

△△△52,831,753

540,493,170

△△△19,415,112

521,078,058

Corporate Tax

355,361,770

△△,378,380

346,983,390

△△△△,896,700

316,086,690

△△11,191,660

304,895,030

△△△50,466,740

Total (corporate tax amount)

1,262,487,650

△△△△18,606,160

843,881,480

△△△84,036,130

759,845,350

△△11,191,660

748,653,690

△△△△513,83,960

C. Imposition and reduction of corporate tax and special tax for rural development for the business year 1994 by the head of ○○ Tax Office

(1) On March 15, 200, the head of ○○ Tax Office imposed corporate tax of KRW 1,132,142,150 and special rural development tax of KRW 49,84,070 on the Plaintiff for the portion of 1994 business year, by including corporate tax of KRW 2,149,642,684 in the above method as above.

(2) Although the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant on June 13, 200, the above Defendant rejected the request for adjudgment on July 14, 200 of the same year. On October 6, 2000, the Plaintiff rendered a decision to accept the request for adjudgment to the Director of the National Tax Tribunal, the Director of the National Tax Tribunal, on July 11, 2001, as to whether the loans to the lender of housing funds, etc. within three months from the date of acquiring the house, re-examines whether the loans under the proviso of Article 46 (2) 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act are loans, and did not correct the relevant tax base and tax amount. However, the above Defendant did not correct

[Contents of Disposition of Tax in 194 for Business Year (unit: Won)]

Classification

Gross income

(Non-deductible Expenses)

Date and Amount of Notice of Disposition

Date of Disposition

Corporate Tax

Special rural development tax

Total

old ○ Bank

1,111,66,095

March 15, 2000

572,134,060

25,642,490

597,776,550

old ○ Bank

1,037,976,589

March 15, 2000

560,008,090

24,205,580

584,213,670

Total

2,149,642,684

1,132,142,150

49,848,070

1,181,90,220

D. Imposition of corporate tax and special tax for rural development for the business year 1995 by the head of ○○ Tax Office

(1) On March 12, 2001, the head of ○○ Tax Office imposed corporate tax of KRW 815,215,390 and special rural development tax of KRW 37,063,980 by including corporate tax of KRW 2,243,393,782 in the above way as to the portion of 195 business year against the Plaintiff in the gross income.

(2) On May 15, 2001, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the request on September 14 of the same year.

【Contents of Disposition of Taxation for Business Year 1995 (unit: source)】

Classification

Gross income

(Non-deductible Expenses)

Date and Amount of Notice of Disposition

Date of Disposition

Corporate Tax

Special rural development tax

Total

old ○ Bank

1,120,109,168

March 12, 2001

250,815,150

10,520,160

261,335,310

old ○ Bank

1,123,284,614

March 12, 2001

564,400,240

26,543,820

590,944,060

Total

2,243,393,782

815,215,390

37,063,980

852,279,370

E. Defendants’ imposition of corporate tax and special rural development tax for the business year 1996

(1) On February 1, 2002, the head of the tax office imposed corporate tax of KRW 521,660,210 and special rural development tax of KRW 43,450 by including corporate tax of KRW 1,094,032,3474 as to the portion of the Plaintiff (former ○○ Bank part) for the business year 1996 in the above way as above. On this issue, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Director of the National Tax Tribunal on May 2, 2002, but the Director of the National Tax Tribunal rejected the decision of dismissal on November 5, 2002.

(2) On March 15, 2002, Defendant ○○○ Head of the tax office included KRW 1,589,650,797 in the above method as to the portion of 1996 business year with respect to the Plaintiff (former ○○ Bank part), and imposed corporate tax of KRW 759,563,820 and special rural and fishing villages tax of KRW 574,200. The Plaintiff requested the Director of the Tax Tribunal for the adjudgment on May 3, 2002, but the Director of the Tax Tribunal decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on November 5, 2002.

【Detailed Statement of Disposition of Taxation for Business Year 1996 (unit: source)】

Classification

Gross income

(Non-deductible Expenses)

Date and Amount of Notice of Disposition

Date of Disposition

Corporate Tax

Special rural development tax

Total

○ Head of tax office

1,094,032,344

February 1, 2002

521,660,210

43,450

521,703,660

○○ Head of tax office

1,589,650,797

March 15, 2002

759,563,820

574,200

760,138,020

Total

2,683,683,141

1,281,224,030

617,650

1,281,841,680

F. As above, the imposition of this case by adding the corporate tax for the business year 1993, the corporate tax for the business year 1994 through the business year 1996, and the special rural development tax for the business year.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1 to 6, Eul evidence 2-1 to 9, one to 4-1 of Gap evidence 3-1, one to 4-1, two-1, and one to 5-1 of Gap evidence 17-2, Gap evidence 15-1, 2, one to 16-1, 17-1, 2, Eul evidence 18-1, 12, one to 13-2, one to 2-1, 3-1 through 15, three-1 to 4-11, Eul evidence 5-1 to 6-16, one to 7-1, one to 14-1, three-1 to 3-1, evidence 1-5, one to 3-1, evidence 1-1, 3-1, 5-1 to 3-1, 5-1, 5-1 to 3-14, evidence 1-1 to 1-3, 5-1-1-1 through 3

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

With respect to the Defendants’ assertion that the instant disposition was lawful on the grounds of the disposition and the relevant statutes, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition was unlawful on the following grounds.

(1) The Plaintiff managed a house loan on the basis of the date of the first loan, which is not the date of the first loan to the Plaintiff’s employees, but the date of the first loan, and when a house loan is exchanged, it is impossible to clarify the date of the first loan because it was discarded the documents related to the previous loan and kept only the loan agreement, etc. made at the time of substitution. However, upon Defendant ○○○○ Tax Office’s request, the Plaintiff’s person in charge of the Plaintiff submitted to the above Defendant a “detailed statement by house loan type” stating the date of the first loan as the date of the first loan, considering the date when estimated by using the computer tatata in the past. The Defendants determined as to whether the employees of this case are homeless employees based on the date of the first loan, which was stated in the “detailed statement by house loan type” submitted by the Plaintiff, as seen above, there is a lot of difference between the date of the first loan and the date of actual first loan, so the application of the relevant provisions should be determined based on the date of establishment of a mortgage on the real estate register of the Plaintiff’s employees.

(2) The meaning of “employee without house” under Article 20 of the former Corporate Tax Act and the proviso of Article 46(2)7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is reasonable to deem that not only a case where a person without house receives a loan, but also the following cases where an employee has no house other than a house acquired by a loan under the proviso of Article 46(2)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

(A) The Plaintiff’s employees, pursuant to the company’s regulations, applied for a loan within three months prior to the acquisition of a house (the acquisition of a partnership house or the acquisition of a general house) or within three months after the acquisition of a house, the loan was deemed to have been used for the acquisition of a house, and thus, the Plaintiff’s employees could not apply the wrongful calculation of the presumed that the loan was made within three months after the acquisition of a house. However, in cases where the date of establishment of a collateral security was made within three months after the acquisition of a house, barring any special circumstance, the loan of a house was also made within three months after the acquisition of a house

(B) Even if a right to collateral security was established for three months after the Plaintiff’s employees acquired a house, it is difficult to view the relevant loan as not required for the acquisition of a house solely on the ground thereof, and it should be determined whether the loan was actually required for the actual acquisition of a house.

(3) Based on the mistake of facts or mistake, the Defendants determined that the Plaintiff’s employees exceeded the scale of national housing without confirmation, even in a case where the Plaintiff’s employees were transferred the house originally acquired and owned, and became homeless, and thus, they were judged as having been the only house based on the initial date of acquisition, or where the fact that the house was smaller than the national housing scale was confirmed by the relevant building ledger

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(1) the significance, criteria, and burden of proof of the ‘employee without house';

(A) In a case where a corporation loans money, etc. to its employees at low interest rate, such act, in principle, falls under the main sentence of Article 46(2)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and thus, in order to exclude the application of the wrongful calculation and calculation denial as to the lending act by a corporation, the act shall be subject to the application of the wrongful calculation and calculation denial. Therefore, in order to exclude the application of the unfair calculation and calculation denial as to the lending act, the requirements under the proviso of Article 46(2)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, namely, the requirements under Article 46(2)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (i.e., the leased employee

In this context, the issue of whether a person is a "non-permanent employee" under the proviso of Article 46 (2) 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act shall be determined based on whether the loan is indicated as ownership of a house in the building register unless there are other special circumstances or not. In addition, as a principle, if a corporation acquires a house with other funds as collateral in order to secure a claim for mortgage loan, and then provides a house as collateral and redeems a house with a loan from a corporation, it shall be reasonable to view that the person is a "non-permanent employee" under the proviso of Article 46 (2) 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, in light of the legislative intent of the proviso of Article 46 (2) 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. However, if a corporation receives a loan after filing an application for a loan in a homeless situation and received a loan after acquiring a house, it shall be determined at the point of 60 days prior to the acquisition of a house, and if it is proved that the loan was actually used after 40 days after the acquisition of a house, it shall be excluded.

(B) In the instant case, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s act of lending the Plaintiff’s employees at a low interest rate of the house acquisition fund constitutes, in principle, the main text of Article 46(2)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and thus, it is subject to the avoidance of wrongful calculation. Therefore, in order for the Plaintiff to not be subject to the avoidance of unfair calculation, the Plaintiff must prove that the above act satisfies the requirements under the proviso of Article 46(2)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and in this case, the main issue is whether the Plaintiff’s employees of the instant case constitute a homeless employee among the above requirements. Therefore, in the instant case, the point at which the Plaintiff’s initial loan of the house acquisition fund was established and based on this determination, the Plaintiff’s employees of the instant case did not hold a house at the time of the loan of the house acquisition fund (hereinafter “non-permanent employees in principle”) or other funds, and then offered a house as security and repaid the house funds (hereinafter “non-performing employees”).

(2) The time of initial loan of the housing acquisition fund

On February 199, prior to the issuance of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff submitted to the head of ○○ Tax Office a detailed statement on the date of initial loan to the Plaintiff’s employees. Based on this, the Defendants determined whether the Plaintiff’s employees are homeless employees, and accordingly, imposed the said disposition by applying the provision of wrongful calculation. However, in the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s first loan date under the “detailed statement by type of housing loan loan” submitted by the Plaintiff is much different from the date of initial loan as estimated on the basis of the recent date of replacement. Thus, the Plaintiff asserted that the establishment date of collateral security, which can be deemed identical or similar to the date of the actual first loan, should be deemed the date of the first loan and be determined by wrongful calculation on the basis of such date.

Therefore, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to take account of the fact that the date of the first loan to ○○○ Housing Association’s employees was 10 days prior to the date of the first loan, and that the date of the first loan to 10 days prior to the date of the first loan to 10 days prior to the date of the first loan to 9 days prior to the date of the first loan to 10 days prior to the date of the first loan to 10 days prior to the date of the first loan to 10 days prior to the expiration of the term of the first loan to 9 days prior to the date of the first loan to 9 days prior to the expiration of the term of the first loan (Article 7(1)). Thus, the Plaintiff’s first loan to 9 days prior to the expiration of the term of the first loan to 9 days prior to the date of the first loan to 9 days prior to the expiration of the term of the first loan to 19 days prior to the date of the first loan to 9 days prior to the expiration of the term of the loan.

(3) Specific determination as to whether a person is a homeless employee

(A) Whether it constitutes a case of imposition by mistake of the Defendants

(ⅰ) The case where the Defendants’ mistake is recognized

In rendering the instant disposition, the Defendants: (a) considered the first ○○○, ○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○, and ○.

As above, if the amount of tax to be reduced is calculated as it falls under the part imposed by mistake of the Defendants, it is the same as the above table (the specific basis for calculating the amount of tax to be reduced is referred to as the "recognized interest and calculation of interest paid" as stated in the defendant's reference document dated December 12, 2006 and January 5, 2007).

【Tax Amount to be reduced (unit: Won)】

1993 Business year

1994 Business year

195 Business year

1996 Business year

Corporate Tax

Corporate Tax

Agriculture Special Taxation

Corporate Tax

Agriculture Special Taxation

Corporate Tax

Agriculture Special Taxation

old ○ Bank

17,438,005

23,037,760

922,355

20,699,717

84,720

17,840,012

(00) Head of tax office

old ○ Bank

23,097,792

37,500,728

1,501,759

35,264,451

1,507,600

27,612,539

(○○○ Head of Tax Office)

10,370

(○○○ Head of Tax Office)

Total

40,535,797

60,538,488

2,424,114

5,964,168

2,392,320

(ii) The case where the defendants' mistake is not recognized

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants had already transferred a house at the time of the initial loan date and thus caused mistake on the date of acquisition of a house, most of the parts asserted that the date of establishment of a collateral security had already been transferred the existing house at the time of the initial loan date or that the Defendants had mistakenly caused the transfer of a house at the time of the initial loan date, so long as the date of establishment of collateral security is not deemed the date of the initial loan date, it is not reasonable without any need to further examine the argument that the establishment of collateral security should be determined on the date of establishment of collateral security, and the remainder is deemed to fall under the case where the date of establishment of collateral security is not indicated or the Defendants' judgment on the transfer of a house is not erroneous. Thus, the part asserted that the remaining part except the portion recognized in subparagraph (i) is the case where the disposal is changed from the initial date of national housing scale to the acquisition of a house in excess of national housing scale or the remaining part except the portion recognized in subparagraph (i) of the above subparagraph (ii) is not reasonable, and the remainder of the part asserted that the loan was owned by mistake.

(B) Whether the case constitutes a person who does not own a house in principle (the case where a person does not own a house at the time of lending a house acquisition fund)

(ⅰ) In the case of a house that is acquired as a housing partner, ② in the case of a house that is acquired by applying for a general apartment house, ③ in the case of a house that is acquired by the purchase of an existing house, ④ in the case of a purchase of an existing house and there is no error in the date of the initial loan, among the cases of a purchase of an existing house, the first loan date except for the employees falling under subparagraph (a) (i) of the above paragraph (3) is a dispute between the parties that there is no employee prior to the date of the initial loan, and thus there is no dispute between the employees falling under the above sub-paragraph (3) (i) among the employees falling under sub-paragraphs

(C) Whether the case constitutes an exceptional employee without a house (the first acquisition of a house with another fund and provision of a house as security, and repayment of a house acquisition fund by borrowing a house from the Plaintiff)

(ⅰ) Whether the case constitutes an application for a loan in a homeless situation

As seen above, among the plaintiff's employees, employees other than those falling under the above (3) (a) (i) among those of the above employees of this case enter that they own a house under their own name at the time of a loan for house acquisition, and there is no evidence to prove that they applied for a loan before acquiring the house, and therefore, there is no case where they applied for a loan in a non-existent situation.

(ii) whether the case constitutes an application for a loan after acquiring an independent house

Therefore, in order for the employee of the Plaintiff to be recognized as a homeless employee other than the cases falling under the above (3) (A) (i) among the employees of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff applied for the loan after independent acquisition of the house, and the loan was made at the time near the acquisition of the house, as well as at the time the loan was used for the repayment of the fund required for the acquisition of the house in question shall be proved by the relevant documentary evidence

According to the statements in Gap evidence 6-2 through 4, the plaintiff's "employee loan regulations" shall be acquired as collateral immediately in the case of a house purchase fund loan (Article 11 (1)), and a house purchase fund shall be limited to the applicant within three months from the date of transfer if the ownership was transferred in his/her own name (Article 12 (1)), and a house purchase fund by direct sale may be acquired as a subsequent mortgage at the same time as a preservation registration (proviso of Article 13). In light of the above facts, it is possible to view the loan as being used for acquiring a house if the applicant applies for a loan within three months from the acquisition of the house and the loan is permitted by the plaintiff, considering that the loan is used for acquiring the house, and it is possible to view the loan as the point of time of loan that is adjacent to the house acquisition within three months after the acquisition of the house. Of the plaintiff's employees of this case, a person who satisfies the criteria of a loan within three months after the acquisition of the house among the plaintiff's employees of this case can be seen as 202,

However, as to whether the loan of this case was used for the purpose of acquiring the loan of this case, each statement of 13 1 through 190 '190' among the plaintiff's employees of this case is merely repeating the plaintiff's assertion that the loan of this case was used to cover the shortage of housing purchase, and it is insufficient to view that such evidence constitutes direct documentary evidence for verifying the source of loan. The witness ○○○ and testimony of this case can not be viewed as evidence for the same reason. Thus, in this case where the relevant documentary evidence is not submitted, it cannot be viewed that the loan of this case was repaid to the fund used for acquiring the house of this case, and therefore, the above 202 persons cannot be viewed as non-permanent employees since the above 190 persons established by 80 ○○○○, ○○ Housing Association, ○○ Housing Association and ○○ Housing Association were established within the scope of 16 years prior to the date of application for the establishment of the house of this case, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a non-permanent employee.

(4) Sub-determination

Therefore, the part on the list of the above (3) (A) (i) of the disposition of this case is unlawful, and the remaining part is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the claims against the Defendants against the Plaintiff is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Relevant statutes

○ former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998)

Article 20 (Disliability of Evaluation of Wrongful Acts)

Under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, where it is deemed that any act of a domestic corporation or the calculation of the income amount has unjustly reduced the tax burden on the income of the corporation in the transactions with the related parties as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the Government may calculate the income amount for each business year of the concerned corporation notwithstanding the calculation of the income amount

○ former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970, Dec. 31, 1998)

Article 46 (Unfair Conduct or Calculation of Juristic Person)

(1) The term “person in special relationship” in Article 20 of the Act means a person in the relationship falling under each of the following subparagraphs:

2. Executives and employees of a corporation, or employees of an investor (referring to the executives in case of a profit-making corporation, and the director and founder in case of a non-profit corporations) or other persons than employees, whose livelihood depends on the money and other assets of the corporation or investors, and their relatives who depend upon them for their livelihood;

(2) "Where it is deemed that any tax burden has been unjustly reduced" in Article 20 of the Act means cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

7. Where money and other assets or services are provided to investors, etc. free of charge or at a low interest rate, tariff, or rental rate: Provided, That this shall not apply where a corporation lends money (limited to the amount prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister) required for the acquisition or lease of a house smaller than the scale of national housing (including the land attached to the house) to homeless employees;

Article 47 (Calculation of Recognized Interest, etc.)

(1) Where an investor, etc. has lent money to the investor, etc. at a rate lower than the monthly interest rate for the current account as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy (hereinafter referred to as the "monthly interest rate"), the difference between the amount equivalent to the interest calculated by the monthly interest rate for the current account and

(2) Where money has been lent to an investor, etc., if there exists any loan with the interest rate higher than the current monthly interest rate, the difference between the amount equivalent to the interest calculated according to the relevant interest rate within the scope of such loan or the amount equivalent to such interest shall be included in gross income: Provided, That where money has been lent to the related parties (limited to corporations or individuals operating businesses), and where an agreement is made to receive the interest at the current and current interest rate with the due date fixed, the current and current interest rate shall be deemed the interest rate on loan in calculating the interest on the relevant loan.

Enforcement Rule of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 86 of May 24, 199)

Article 22 (Scope of Housing Purchase Funds)

(1) The amount prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy under the proviso to Article 46 (2) 7 of the Decree shall be 20 million won.

(2) "Fund required for acquisition or lease" in the proviso to Article 46 (2) 7 of the Decree means the fund for purchasing a house, the money for lease on a deposit basis, or a security deposit.