The validity of the disposition of imposing additional tax (pro rata corporate tax) on a livestock cooperative as an unidentified person under Article 66 (2) or 41 (4) of the Corporate Tax Act;

According to Article 4 (1) 6 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, only the income and profits of the cooperative established under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act shall be exempted from the corporate tax and the business tax. However, under Article 8 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act which takes precedence over this, the business and assets of the cooperative shall be exempted from all taxes and the charges except customs and the goods taxes. Thus, even if the plaintiff union submitted a report to the tax office where the counterpart to the transaction of the purchase price of goods as provided in Article 66 of the Corporate Tax Act is unclear, the head of the tax office may not impose the principal tax on the negligence of the obligation, and thus the above disposition of imposing the corporate

Article 4 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, Articles 66 and 41 of the Corporate Tax Act, Articles 8 and 118 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Nu93 delivered on July 11, 1972 (Supreme Court Decision 1021Da10221 delivered on July 11, 197, Supreme Court Decision 202Du33 delivered on July 20, 200, Supreme Court Decision Article 4(1)1880

Daegu Livestock Cooperatives

Countries

Daegu District Court (73 Gohap105) in the first instance

The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 486,37 won with an annual interest rate of 5 percent from April 11, 1973 to the full payment.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 486,37 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 5 percent per annum from the next day of service to the next day of full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

Article 66(2) and Article 41(4) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the head of the tax office belonging to the defendant Daegu District Tax Office shall impose corporate tax of 486,37 won on the plaintiff cooperative for 14 times as additional tax on the plaintiff cooperative because the actual investigation of the price of the monthly goods paid by the cooperative to the Government from December 22, 1969 to January 14, 197, the details of the reports on various charges or usage fees, and the transactions of the reports is unclear. The fact that each time the plaintiff cooperative collects corporate tax of 486,37 won is not disputed. The plaintiff cooperative is established under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, and therefore, it is reasonable to impose corporate tax on the plaintiff cooperative for the purpose of tax reduction and exemption under Article 86(1) of the Act on Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption and the Act on Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption and the Act on the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption and the Act on the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption and the Act on the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption and Exemption are not legitimate.

Thus, the plaintiff collected 486,37 won from the plaintiff in accordance with the above disposition, and at the same time, the plaintiff suffered damages from the same amount, and the defendant is obligated to return it to the plaintiff without any legal cause. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return it to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for the payment of interest in arrears at the rate of 5% per annum of the Civil Code from April 11, 1973 to the full payment system, which is obvious in the record that it is the above amount and the next day for delivery to the defendant. The plaintiff's claim for the payment of interest in arrears at the rate of 5% per annum of the Civil Code, shall be justified. The judgment of the court below is partially inconsistent with this, due to the reduction of the plaintiff's claim, and it is modified, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89

Judges Lee Jong-sung (Presiding Judge)