Whether the receipt of the interest on the loan at the time of the principal payment constitutes a case where the tax burden has been unjustly reduced.

If the Plaintiff, a special corporation, which is composed of a constructor who obtained a construction business license and has invested in the partnership members, lends operating funds or construction funds to the partnership members without using a normal method of payment of interest, and then grants interest at the time of the principal repayment, and then grants the profits of time by paying interest, and then distributes the above-mentioned profits to the partnership members, if the agreement amounting to the number of days of maturity is calculated by applying the reasonable monthly interest rate as stipulated in Article 47(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 20(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and then distributes the profits equivalent to the above-mentioned amount to the agreed interest calculated by applying the reasonable monthly interest rate as stipulated in Article 47(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

Article 20 of the Corporate Tax Act (Law No. 3200), Article 46(2)7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9961)

Construction Financial Cooperative

The director of the tax office

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Of the disposition imposing corporate tax on the Plaintiff as of September 1, 1982, the amount exceeding KRW 49,639,174 and KRW 8,897,574 of the defense tax shall be revoked in excess of KRW 3,002,219, and the defense tax amount exceeding KRW 538,132.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant

The Defendant imposed corporate tax amount of KRW 49,639,174 and defense tax amount of KRW 8,574 on September 1, 1982 on the Plaintiff for the business year 1980, KRW 400, KRW 700, KRW 470, KRW 470, KRW 576, KRW 477 and KRW 8,574, and there is no dispute between the parties concerned, KRW 2, Eul, and KRW 3,4, and KRW 16, KRW 46, and KRW 47, KRW 7, and KRW 47, KRW 96, KRW 96, KRW 46, KRW 7, and KRW 47, KRW 96, KRW 47, KRW 47, and KRW 96, KRW 47, KRW 47, and KRW 96, KRW 96, KRW 47, and KRW 47, and the Plaintiff’s amount of interest remaining at the end of the above business year. The Defendant reported the above amount of KRW 16666, Defendant’s interest.

The plaintiff's attorney is a special juristic person established under the Construction Mutual Aid Association Act for the purpose of promoting the association members' independent economic activities and the improvement of their economic status by providing necessary guarantee and financing to the association members, and the defendant's taxation disposition of this case, which was made by calculating the difference by calculating the income tax burden on the plaintiff's income, is unlawful, the defendant's litigation performer claims that the above disposition of this case is justified, although the plaintiff did not receive the interest on the loan from the union members each month, and the interest on the loan was not accrued at the time when the principal is repaid in accordance with the agreement that the loan is paid in order to support the short-term demand for the operation of the business in order to achieve the proper purpose of the business.

Therefore, according to Article 20 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 46 (2) 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1019 of Dec. 31, 1980), if a corporation loans or provides money or other assets without consideration or at a low interest rate, at a rate or rent, to a person with a special relationship such as an investor, etc., it shall be deemed that the corporation's tax burden on the corporation's income can be reduced unfairly and the corporation's income amount can be calculated for each business year regardless of the corporation's act or income amount. "The tax burden on corporation's income" in this context means that the corporation's interest rate is unreasonably reduced or reduced, as well as the above 6th anniversary of its intention, it shall be deemed that the corporation is disadvantageous to the corporation at the time of its completion of construction projects by applying the first six-month loan interest rate to the first six-month loan interest rate (see Supreme Court Decision 196Nu1781 of Dec. 13, 1983).

According to the above facts, the plaintiff received interest from the specially-related union members under Article 20 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 46 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act at the time of each month without using a normal interest payment method, and thereafter granted a loan to the union members for the interest payment method, thereby contributing to the above recognized interest and the amount equivalent to 69,662,05 won. Thus, even if the funds loan due to the payment method of the plaintiff's above interest and the payment method aim to achieve his own business purpose, it constitutes a case where the tax burden on the plaintiff's income was unjustly reduced, and therefore, the taxation disposition in this case is legitimate, which added the amount equivalent to the above recognized interest and the amount of damages to the plaintiff's income for the business year of 1980, notwithstanding the calculation of the plaintiff's act or income amount.

The plaintiff's legal representative is consistent with the principle of confirmation of right under Article 17 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act to receive interest on the date of repayment of loan which is agreed upon by the loan agreement between the plaintiff and the union members. The plaintiff's legal representative denies the actual receipt of interest on the date of repayment of loan and deemed the advance payment of interest on the date of loan, and asserted that the plaintiff's calculation of the plaintiff's income from the plaintiff's income is unlawful since it violates the above principle of confirmation of right. Thus, Article 17 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the business year of accrual of earnings and losses of a domestic corporation for each business year shall be the business year which belongs to the date when the profit and losses are fixed," and Article 17 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the business year of accrual of earnings and losses of the domestic corporation shall be the business year which belongs to the date when the profit and expenses are fixed." Since the normal method of payment of interest on loan is accepted at the time of each month (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu117, 285, 28000, supra.).

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the premise that the defendant's taxation disposition of this case is unlawful is without merit, and it is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost.

Judges Yoon Jong-sung (Presiding Judge)