(a) Whether the vehicle maintenance cost without any documentary evidence concerning the disbursement process is a bonus for the representative of a corporation and disposed of as a bonus;

(b) Criteria for determining "property not related to the business of a corporation" under Article 16 subparagraph 7 of the Corporate Tax Act;

(c) Whether acquisition tax is subject to calculation of profit or loss;

(d) The case holding that the disposition of revocation of the imposition of corporate tax, etc. is not specified; and

A. Since the Plaintiff does not keep account books or documentary evidence, such as vehicle operation log or statement of expenditure, which indicates how the expenses have been disbursed as losses in calculating the income amount, it is legitimate to exclude the Plaintiff’s account from deductible expenses and add it to gross income as a bonus for the representative of the Plaintiff corporation, since it is not clear that the Defendant denied the inclusion of deductible expenses, added it to gross income, and the ownership of the profits is unclear, since it is treated as a bonus for the representative of the Plaintiff corporation and imposed tax.

B. Determination of whether a “property irrelevant to the corporation’s business” under Article 16 subparag. 7 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is “property irrelevant to the corporation’s business” should be made by comprehensively taking into account the purpose of the corporation’s business, the developments leading up to the acquisition

(c)in the case of acquisition of a corporation’s fixed assets from the outside, the acquisition cost shall be the price for the assets at the time of purchase, including the registration tax, the acquisition tax and other incidental expenses, and the acquisition cost shall be offset as losses by depreciation as the standard value for the calculation of depreciation. Thus, acquisition tax shall be included in the cost of acquisition of assets, but shall not be subject to the calculation of profits and losses.

D. In a case where it is indicated in the text of the judgment that the tax amount calculated by adding a certain amount to gross income is revoked, it is not clear in the text itself whether the tax amount as set forth in the text should be calculated to the extent possible, and in light of the reasons for the judgment, it cannot be seen that it is evident from the perspective of the reasons for the judgment. Therefore, the part ordering revocation as above cannot be seen as having

A. Article 16 subparag. 8 and Article 20 of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 31 and Article 46 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 16 subparag. 7 of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 16 subparag. 12 of the Corporate Tax Act; Articles 12 subparag. 5 and 48(2)1(d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 193 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 1 and 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 32 of the Corporate Tax Act

D. Supreme Court Decision 82Nu449 delivered on April 12, 1983

Attorney Jeon Jong-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of the Jeonju Tax Office

Gwangju High Court Decision 77Gu53,78 Gu40 delivered on February 24, 1981

The part of the judgment of the court below regarding the disposition of imposition of corporate tax and Class A earned income tax for the business year 1973, corporate tax for the business year 1974, and corporate tax and defense tax for the business year 1975, shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High

All remaining appeals by the defendant and the plaintiff's appeal are dismissed, and the costs of appeal against this dismissed appeal are assessed against each appellant.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence of the city, as to the current status of the poor in the remaining poor in the after consumption of the raw materials of alcoholic beverages, etc., the plaintiff calculated 185,768 as the name of "Public Marinas" in the business year of 1973 and entered them in the storage goods account by 72 won per unit price. However, since the above poor in the market was sold to the plaintiff in the business year of 1974 as the above unit price, the defendant is considered to have sold the above poor in the business year of 13,375,296 won, and added it as the bonus for the representative of the plaintiff corporation at the time of the same business year and the amount of tax base for the corporate tax and the private business tax in the same business year of 13,375,296 won to be added to the amount of sales revenue of each of the above businesses year after calculating the sales revenue of each of the above businesses in accordance with the tax base of the plaintiff corporation's total business income and the tax base for each of the above business year.

B. The plaintiff paid KRW 5,014,728 and KRW 4,740 for the business year of 1973, the amount of KRW 2,778,49 and KRW 5,043,740 for the business year of 1974 for the management expenses of 4 vehicles, but the above four vehicles are shareholders or directors of the plaintiff corporation, and the plaintiff is responsible for the expenses in calculating the income amount of the plaintiff corporation, while the above expenses are being treated as losses in calculating the income amount of the plaintiff corporation, all books and evidential documents, such as vehicle operation log or disbursement statement stating what circumstances the expenses for maintaining the vehicle were paid, are not kept. Thus, the defendant denied the above accounting amount of the plaintiff as losses and added profits to the corporation's employees, shareholders and other specially related persons, and it is unclear that the profits accrue as bonus for the representative of the plaintiff corporation. After recognizing the fact that each tax base was imposed, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the denial of taxation of the income tax law and the legal principles as to the wrongful calculation.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3 by Defendant Litigation Performers.

The judgment of the court below is justified in finding that the plaintiff purchased a factory of the non-party Japanese Industries Co., Ltd. from the non-party Japanese bank and transferred some of the machinery, etc. installed therein to the plaintiff's factory, and it should be determined by comprehensively considering the purpose of business of the corporation as stipulated in the articles of incorporation, the process of acquiring assets, the purpose of use of assets, and the actual use of the above factory. Since the circumstances that the plaintiff should purchase the above factory in a lump sum and the purchase of the site portion cannot be used in the process of removal and transport of the machinery, it is reasonable to consider that the purchase of the site portion is an asset acquisition related to the plaintiff corporation's business, and it is not reasonable to determine that the defendant's disposal of the above raw materials for raw material packaging for the business year as stated in Article 16 subparagraph 7 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is not a 185Do768 of the Corporate Tax Act, and that the defendant's disposal of the remaining part of the land portion is not a 90-year's tax base.

3. We examine the second ground for appeal by the defendant litigation performer.

The acquisition cost for acquiring the fixed assets of a corporation from outside shall be the price for the acquisition at the time of purchase, and the price shall include registration tax, acquisition tax and other incidental expenses (see Article 48 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act). Since the acquisition cost is the standard price for depreciation and shall be appropriated as losses through depreciation, acquisition tax shall be included in the cost for acquisition of assets and shall not be included in the cost for acquisition of profits and losses. The judgment of the court below is just for the calculation of the income amount of the plaintiff corporation in the business year of 1973, in addition to the gross income, the acquisition tax amount of KRW 740,000 paid after the plaintiff purchased the factory site of the non-party Jeju Alcoholic Industries Co., Ltd., Ltd. in the business year of 1973 shall be calculated as the tax base for the business year of 1973, and the defendant's disposition imposing corporate tax in the business year of 1973 shall be included in the calculation of losses, and it shall be so denied, which shall not be included in the acquisition cost.

4. Ex officio, the judgment of the court below is based on the reasoning of the judgment below, and the defendant's business year of 1973 against the plaintiff.

In the disposition of imposition of KRW 9,216, the tax amount calculated by adding the amount of KRW 6,41,897 in the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year 1973, the tax amount calculated by adding the amount of KRW 10,846,141 in the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year 1974, the tax amount calculated by adding the amount of KRW 16,36,918 in the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year 1975, the tax amount calculated by adding the amount of KRW 16,36,918 in the disposition of imposition of corporate tax and defense tax for the business year 1975, and the tax amount calculated by adding the amount of KRW 921,60 in the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year 1973, the tax amount for imposition of KRW 9,600 in the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year 1973, corporate tax for the business year 1974, and the tax amount of KRW 284.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, each cancellation of the disposition of imposition of corporate tax and Class A earned income tax for the business year of 1973, corporate tax for the business year of 1974, and corporate tax and defense tax for the business year of 1975 cannot be maintained because the order of the judgment is not specified. (In addition, the above part of the judgment that the cancellation of the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year of 1973 is improper even when the amount of tax calculated by adding the acquisition tax to gross income is added to gross income is also stated in the opinion of the court below) is reversed and remanded to the Gwangju High Court. The remaining appeal by the defendant and the plaintiff's appeal are without merit, and the costs of appeal for the dismissal of the appeal are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)