(a) The subject matter of litigation in case of a correction disposition increasing the initial taxation disposition; and

B. Whether a legal evaluation of the causal relationship of income must be lawful and effective in order to become a taxable income

A. In a case where a tax authority determines the tax base and amount of tax and then finds any omission or error in the tax base and amount of tax, and thus, a correction disposition is not a disposition to determine only the portion exceeding the original tax base and amount of tax in the original disposition, but a disposition to determine the tax base and amount of tax as a whole by including the tax base and amount in the initial disposition according to the results found by a reinvestigation, and thus, if a correction disposition is made, the initial disposition is naturally extinguished by absorbing it into the correction disposition, and thus only the correction disposition is subject

B. Whether a certain income is subject to imposition should be determined based on the economic aspect, and it is reasonable to deem that there is a tax-bearing force and that there is a tax-bearing force, and the legal assessment of the causal relationship in which the income was derived should not be lawful and effective.

(a) Article 32 of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Articles 2(1), 9(1), and 9(2) of the Corporate Tax Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Nu199 delivered on December 23, 1986 (Gong1987,249) 86Nu617 delivered on February 9, 198 (Gong1988,522) 89Nu3724 delivered on November 24, 1989 (Gong1990,154) 91Nu9596 delivered on May 26, 1992 (Gong192,2051) 81Nu136 delivered on October 25, 1983 (Gong1983,1752) 83Nu123 delivered on May 28, 1985 (Gong1985,932) 199Nu437539 delivered on December 24, 1995 (Gong1985,932) 195Nu45379 delivered on May 26, 1995)

Attorney Lee Jae-chul et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee

The head of Yangcheon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu464 delivered on May 9, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the litigation performer are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

In a case where a tax authority determines a tax base and amount of tax and an omission or error is found after the tax base and amount of tax are found to exist and a correction disposition is made to increase them, the correction disposition is not a disposition to additionally determine only the portion exceeding the tax base and amount of tax in the original disposition, but to determine the tax base and amount of tax as a whole by including the tax base and amount in the original disposition in accordance with the results of a reinvestigation identified as a result of a reinvestigation. If a correction disposition is made, the original disposition becomes extinct as a matter of course by absorbing it in the correction disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Nu199, Dec. 23, 1989; 89Nu3724, Nov. 24, 1989).

In the same purport, the court below held that the disposition subject to the lawsuit of this case was a disposition to increase or correct (the corporate tax base shall be deemed to be KRW 1,054,835,214, and the corporate tax shall be imposed KRW 434,775,33, and the defense tax shall be imposed KRW 88,638,270) on May 17, 1993, and there is no error of law as claimed in the grounds of appeal.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

The reasoning of the judgment below is examined in light of the records, and it is reasonable that the court below's determination of the vehicle that the plaintiff actually transferred for consideration by the evidence as 35, and it cannot be said that there was an error of law due to incomplete deliberation or misconception of facts against the rules of evidence

3. On the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its judgment, and determined that the sales contract for the seven vehicles of the 35 vehicles transferred for consideration by the plaintiff between the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 and the non-party 6 was concluded voluntarily before June 30, 1990, which decided that the non-party 1 would receive all the plaintiff's operating rights and the plaintiff's representative director's seal impression and rubber from the non-party 3, the representative director of the plaintiff, and that the non-party 1 would be null and void against the plaintiff. However, since the three vehicles of the above 7 vehicles already raised by the plaintiff and the judgment became final and conclusive in the Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu1291 (Revocation of Disposition of Disposition of Imposition of Corporate Tax, etc.), the allegation that the above 3 vehicles of the above 3 vehicles become null and void cannot be treated as the plaintiff's gross income.

However, in order to determine which income is subject to imposition, it is sufficient to say that there is a tax-bearing force and that there is a tax-bearing force, in light of the economic aspect, it is possible to control and manage the profit in reality from the economic aspect, and it is sufficient to determine that there is a tax-bearing force, and the legal assessment of the causal relationship in which the income is derived is not necessarily lawful and effective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu5823, Dec. 27, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 91Nu5303, Dec. 10, 191; etc.). Therefore, in order to determine whether the lower court should include the sales price for the above four vehicles as the Plaintiff’s gross income, it should not be subject to the provisions and duties of the sales contract for the above four vehicles, but also be subject to whether the Plaintiff has gained the profit while controlling and managing the above sales price

Despite the fact that the court below did not proceed to this, but merely because the above sales contract was null and void, it is wrong to determine that the sales price for the above four parts cannot be treated as the gross income. However, according to the records, the above non-party 1 did not deposit the sales price for the above four parts to the plaintiff, but used it at will. Thus, the above non-party 1 does not have the effect of the sales contract for the above four parts of the vehicles sold by the above non-party 1, and it does not have the status of leading to the plaintiff while controlling and managing the real benefits arising from the sale and purchase, and therefore, it cannot include the sales price for the above four parts in the plaintiff's gross income. Thus, the court below's decision that did not include the sales price for the above four parts of the vehicles as the gross income is just and it does not affect the judgment as seen above

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)