(a) The time when the liability to pay the corporate tax, which is imposed occasionally (when the cause of occasional levy occurs); and

(b) The nature of the tax liability in a case where income has not been determined due to the failure to liquidate the balance of the transfer for value which is subject to the special surtax (negative)

A. The special surtax of corporate tax may also be imposed where there are grounds for occasional assessment as stipulated in Article 97(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and the time when the liability to pay the special surtax is established shall be established when the grounds for occasional assessment occur under Article 21(2)4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

B. In a case where it is recognized that the taxation might be evaded due to the reasons for the occasional imposition under the Enforcement Decree of the above "A" before the end of the taxable period, even if the system is to secure national taxes early by notifying the tax base and tax amount to the time of the occasional imposition without receiving a tax base return, the purpose of the taxation of the special surtax is to stipulate that the transfer of assets subject to the imposition of the special surtax has become final and conclusive as the income becomes final and conclusive. According to Article 59-5 of the Corporate Tax Act, the year in which the transfer income subject to the special surtax becomes final and conclusive or reverted shall be the business year to which the transfer date belongs. On the other hand, Article 59-2 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the transfer date shall be the date of the liquidation of assets in principle, and therefore, even if the time when the special surtax liability for the occasional imposition occurred as referred to in the above "A" becomes final and conclusive as the remaining income is not settled.

(a)Article 36(1) of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 97(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Article 21(2)4(b) of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 59-5 of the same Act; Article 124-2(13) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree

Salary Management Corporation, Inc.

The superintendent of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu21737 delivered on November 29, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to Article 59-5 of the Corporate Tax Act, the report, payment, determination, correction and collection of the tax base of special surtax under Article 59-2 of the same Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the report, payment, determination, correction and collection of the corporate tax base of corporate tax on income in each business year to which the transfer date of land, etc. belongs, and the provisions on the return, payment, determination, correction and collection of corporate tax shall apply mutatis mutandis to other corporate tax, and where a domestic corporation is deemed to have a risk of evading corporate tax due to such reasons as prescribed by the Presidential Decree during the business year, the Government may impose corporate tax on the corporation from time to time. Article 36(1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that where the domestic corporation is deemed to have a risk of evading corporate tax due to such reasons as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, it may impose corporate tax on the corporation from time to time.

However, even if the system of the occasional assessment is deemed likely to evade taxes due to the reasons for the occasional assessment under the above Enforcement Decree before the end of the taxable period, the tax base and the amount of the tax are first determined and notified until the time of the occasional assessment, so that the transfer of assets subject to the imposition of the special surtax becomes final and conclusive as the income becomes final and conclusive as the transfer of assets subject to the imposition of the special surtax is completed. According to Article 59-5 of the above Corporate Tax Act, the year in which the transfer income subject to the special surtax becomes final and conclusive shall be the business year to which the transfer date belongs. On the other hand, Article 59-2(4) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act applied mutatis mutandis under Article 124-2(13) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the transfer date shall be the date of the liquidation of assets as seen above, so long as the time of establishment of the liability to pay the special surtax becomes final and conclusive as the remaining assets are not settled.

2. On August 26, 198, the court below concluded a contract with the non-party company to sell real estate stated in the separate sheet for 225,00,000 won to the non-party company and did not receive the balance amount of 48,00,000 won from the non-party company. The defendant decided that the plaintiff could evade taxes by transferring the above real estate and closing the business, and attached the plaintiff's claim for the above remaining purchase price to the non-party company on July 20, 1989 under the provisions of the National Tax Collection Act for the preservation before tax settlement under the National Tax Collection Act. Further, the special surtax was imposed on August 20 of the same year with the reasons for the omission of the imposition of the special surtax at the time of the above corporate tax, and did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the above remaining purchase price or the defense of the tax obligor at the time of the above additional tax imposition. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the above remaining purchase price or the sale price by subrogation.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)