Whether the securities appraisal loss shall be deducted when determining the education tax base of the profits from the securities appraisal.

In light of the fact that the profit from the evaluation of securities reaches the elimination of Article 4 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Education Tax Act on December 31, 2004 on the grounds that the Enforcement Decree of the Education Tax Act was amended by Presidential Decree No. 18630 on December 31, 2004, the profit from the evaluation of securities should be regarded as the net amount less the loss.

Article 5 of the Education Tax Act

Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of Education Tax Act

1. A. The imposition of the education tax amount of 19,610,120 won for the Plaintiff on April 1, 2004, and the imposition of the education tax amount of 95,514,070 won for the year 200, and the education tax amount of 9,273,170 won for the year 201; and

B. On April 1, 2004, the head of the Defendant Heavy Tax Office revoked each imposition of KRW 316,139,490 of the education tax for the Plaintiff in 199, KRW 211,517,340 of the education tax for the year 200, KRW 163,720,040 of the education tax for the year 201, and KRW 33,091,430 of the education tax for the year 2002.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant ○○○ director are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant ○○○ Head of the tax office is 75%, and the remainder 25% is borne by the Plaintiff, respectively, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office is borne

Cheong-gu Office

In the disposition of imposition of KRW 1,619,238,655 of corporate tax belonging to the business year of 1999 against the plaintiff on April 1, 2004, the part exceeding KRW 1,244,211,244 of the disposition of imposition of KRW 1,399,89,881 of corporate tax belonging to the business year of 2000, and the part exceeding KRW 557,908,384 of the disposition of imposition of KRW 663,874,390 of corporate tax belonging to the business year of 2001, and the part exceeding KRW 57,908,384 of the disposition of imposition of KRW 1,244 of corporate tax belonging to the business year of 200.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or the purport of Gap evidence 1-1-3, evidence 1-2, evidence 3-2, evidence 6-1 through 3, evidence 7-1-1, 2, Gap evidence 8-2, evidence 9-1, 10, 11-1, 12, and 13-14-1, 2, evidence 15, evidence 1-1 through 10, evidence 2-1-2, evidence 3-1 through 3-10, evidence 3-1 through 4-12, evidence 13-1, and evidence 14-1, 14 through 9-1, respectively.

A. ○○○ Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Bank”) was merged with the Plaintiff bank on November 1, 2001, when it was concurrently engaged in the banking business authorized under Article 8 of the Banking Act and the trust business authorized under Article 3 of the Trust Business Act.

B. On December 26, 1997, the ○○ Bank (hereinafter “○○ Bank”) decided to manage funds for procurement, loans, securities, etc. for the purpose of raising long-term funds and enhancing asset soundness (BS ratio) and agreed to have ○○ Bank listed ○ Bank (hereinafter “○○ Bank”) acquire and sell the bonds of this case with ○○ Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Securities”) on the total amount of the bonds of this case (the ○○ Securities will complete the subscription price of the bonds of this case on December 26, 1997). The Korea Securities Depository filed for a blanket registration of the bonds of this case with the Korea Securities Depository, listed them on the Korea Stock Exchange, and agreed to pay fees.

(1) Trade name of issuing company: ○ bank;

(2) Name of bonds: ○ bank No. 9712-26, first privately placed bonds

(c) Category of bonds: non-registered interest coupon bonds under Article 26 of the Banking Act;

(d) Total amount of bonds: 40 billion won;

(5) Method of issuing bonds: this bond shall be registered and shall not be issued.

C. (1) On June 29, 1998, the head of ○○○○○ Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the results of the investigation, and notified the Plaintiff of the total amount of corporate tax of KRW 4,698,133,740 ( KRW 2,620,362,321 ( KRW 1,909,100,972, KRW 458,192,847, KRW 253,068,50, and KRW 502, and the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the total amount of corporate tax of KRW 4,698, KRW 133,740 ( KRW 2,585,01, KRW 370, KRW 2000, KRW 1999, KRW 409, KRW 947, KRW 6309, KRW 6309, KRW 6308, KRW 6309, KRW 63089, KRW 6308, KRW 4097.

(2) In calculating the non-deductible amount of interest paid in relation to the company assets in the business year of 1999 among the Do of the instant lawsuit, the head of the ○○○○ Tax Office shall correct the amount of income calculated by deducting KRW 1,549,637,996 of the corporate tax by verifying that the number of provisional payment paid in 30,230,501,173,822 was 200 business year, and by immediately reducing the amount of income of KRW 22,259,876,475,617 of the business year of 1999, the amount of income of KRW 1,549,972,334 of the instant lawsuit was 1,59, in calculating the interest paid in relation to the company assets in the business year of 2000, the calculation of the subordinated borrowings and the Korean won call amount was 106,952,428 won to reduce the corporate tax amount, 436,799, and 99 (hereinafter referred to the subsequent disposition of education tax).

D. (1) When calculating the tax base of education tax, the head of ○○○○○○○○○○○○ was to include 22,617,702,523 won (3,565,476,798 won in 1999, 17,366, 194, 659 won in 200, 1,686,031,066 won in 201) in the tax base on April 1, 2004, the amount of 124,397,360 won in education tax (19,610,120 won in 199,514,514,070 won in 200, 201, 173,766) in the tax base.

(2) Upon receipt of the notice of the results of the investigation from the director of ○○○ Tax Office, the director of ○○ Tax Office notified the Plaintiff on April 1, 2004 that 186,266,962,902 won (57,479,907,695 won, 38,457,698,783 won in 2000, 29767,278,278,104 won, 60,562,078,320,320 won in education tax on April 1, 2004 after deducting the ○○ Bank and the Plaintiff Bank reported the education tax from the securities appraisal profit when calculating the tax base of the education tax.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) In light of the fact that the bonds of this case were issued by ○○ Securities with total amount underwriting, the bonds of this case do not differ from the merchant bank’s financial bonds that were recognized as receiving funds in tax practice, and are used as business funds such as loans, securities, etc., and that ○ Bank intended to list them at its own expense with the Korea Stock Exchange, it constitutes funds acquired by an unspecified number of people through the issuance of bonds, which are securities, and thus constitutes funds received from an unspecified number of people under Article 53(4)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and thus, should be excluded

(2) Article 4(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Education Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970, Dec. 31, 1998; Presidential Decree No. 15970, Dec. 31, 1998; hereinafter in the absence of any other indication, this Act is deemed to be a violation of the principle of no taxation without law, fair taxation, infringement of property rights due to overlapped taxation, and unconstitutional and illegal provisions deviating from the scope of the authority of the mother law. Thus, it shall be deemed to be a net amount calculated by subtracting the current securities appraisal loss, which is not a total amount, from the total amount.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Claim for revocation of corporate tax

(A) Funds received refers to funds acquired by bearing obligations from many unspecified persons through the receipt of deposits and issuance of securities and other bonds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu11812, Dec. 23, 1998).

(B) However, as seen earlier, the bonds of this case are privately issued by Dongnam Bank through total underwriting against ○○ Securities, a financial institution, for the purpose of the long-term financing and the enhancement of asset soundness. It does not differ from the loans of general companies in its nature. Since it does not bear obligations against many unspecified persons at the time of issuance, it is different from the funds to be raised by a merchant bank by issuing comprehensive financial bonds, and therefore, it is different from the funds to be raised by a merchant bank by issuing comprehensive financial bonds. In addition, even if the bonds of this case are sold to many unspecified persons after the acquisition of the bonds of this case, it shall be deemed that the bonds of this case are sold under its responsibility and calculation. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the bonds of this case are issued through public offering or subscription of bonds of this case cannot be viewed as being identical to the bonds of this case, since it is not reasonable to the plaintiff's assertion that the bonds of this case are issued through public offering or subscription of bonds of this case.

(2) Claim for revocation of education tax

(A) Article 5 (1) 1 of the Education Tax Act provides that the revenue amount of a financial and insurance business entity shall be the tax base, and Article 5 (3) of the same Act provides that "the revenue amount which becomes the tax base" shall mean interest, dividend, commission, guarantee fee, securities sales profit and redemption profit, insurance premium (the amount accumulated as liability reserve and contingency reserve and the amount of reinsurance premium shall be deducted), and the calculation thereof shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and Article 5 (4) of the same Act provides that "the revenue amount which becomes the tax base of subparagraph 1 of Article 8 shall be the total revenue amount of each taxable period under Article 8, and Article 4 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Education Tax Act provides that "securities evaluation profit" shall be one of the amount prescribed by the Presidential Decree under Article 5 (3) of the Education Tax Act and Article 5 (3

(B) According to Article 4 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Education Tax Act, if the value of the securities acquired by 100 for the same taxable period is deemed to be the total value without deducting the appraised loss, for example, if the total amount of education tax differs from 200 (150 for appraised loss) and 100 (50 for appraised loss) for the same taxable period, and even if the total amount of education tax is to be included in the taxable period due to the nature of the fixed-term taxation, if the total amount of the assessed loss is not increased, it would be against the principle of fair taxation by discriminating the same taxpayer for the increased taxable period without any reasonable reason. Article 4 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Education Tax Act provides that 150,80, 100, 150, 200, etc. of the Enforcement Decree of the same Education Tax Act provides that the amount of the securities acquired by 100 for each taxable period shall be deemed to have been deducted from the total amount of education tax due to the increase of the securities tax base.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, among the dispositions in this case, the part of the disposition imposing corporate tax by Defendant ○○○○ Tax Office against the Plaintiff is legitimate, and all of the remaining parts are illegal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the claims in this case, the plaintiff accepted the claim against the defendant ○○○ Head of the tax office within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant ○○ Head of the tax office is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.