(a) The case holding that where the creditor group has repaid the claim with income accruing from the management of the debtor company, such income reverts to the debtor company;

B. Whether the method of determining the tax base amount varies in the case of a corporation’s income or other income (negative)

C. Whether the whole amount of income should be added to the tax base amount in cases where there is no proof of expenses incurred in obtaining omitted income calculated by the on-site investigation (affirmative)

(d) Whether a disposition imposing wage and salary income tax, etc. is appropriate on a corporation’s income amount appropriated for the repayment of debts to the creditors’ group as a bonus to its representative (negative);

A. The creditor group decided to manage the plaintiff company for recovery of claims by opening a plenary meeting during the attending of the general meeting of the plaintiff company's overall affairs and the auditor, and operated the company with the above two executives and the previous employees, and paid the amount equivalent to the claim with their revenues, and then transferred the management right to the plaintiff representative director. However, if the representative director did not raise any objection, it is reasonable to view that the above act of the creditor group was implicitly ratified by the plaintiff representative director. Thus, it is obvious that the legal effect belongs to the plaintiff, as well as that the creditor group obtained economic benefits to avoid the plaintiff's debt by appropriating the income obtained by the creditor's repayment of the creditor's claim, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the income of the

B. Income of a corporation is a taxable object without considering its nature as to whether it is incidental income or whether it is other income, and the tax base amount is determined by the method of deducting the deductible expenses from the total amount of income, and even if its nature constitutes other income under the Income Tax Act, there is no reason to apply the provisions on other income to such income.

C. In imposing a tax on the omitted income calculated by the on-site investigation, the total amount of the revenue should be added to the tax base amount unless there is any evidence that the separate expenses were incurred in order to obtain the revenue.

D. Where it is evident that the amount included in gross income under the Corporate Tax Act was leaked out of the company, but its attribution is unclear, it shall be deemed as reverted to the representative. However, if there are circumstances to deem that the amount included in gross income is not leaked out of the company, it shall be deemed as a bonus for the representative and it shall not be imposed any income tax. Thus, if the omitted income amount was appropriated for the repayment of the entire creditor group's claims, it shall not be deemed as a bonus for the representative, and it shall not be deemed as lawful as a detailed defense and disposition.

(a) Article 3. 8 (b) of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 32 (d) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

C. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu1004 delivered on October 13, 1987 (Gong1987,1721) D. Supreme Court Decision 86Nu587 delivered on March 22, 1988 (Gong1988,704)

Daw Construction Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu1100 delivered on February 15, 1990

Of the lower judgment, the part against the Plaintiff regarding Class A earned income tax and defense detailed and disposition on February 14, 1986 shall be reversed.

The above reversed part case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's remaining appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

No. 1 and the court below asserted that Eul evidence No. 15-2 through No. 6 (Written Confirmation), which is the basis of taxation of the disposition imposing corporate tax, etc. of this case, was prepared differently from the fact, and that the plaintiff did not believe part of Gap evidence No. 4-2 (Examination Protocol), which was submitted as evidence, and did not seem to have been erroneous in the rules of evidence in the course of the decision, and thus rejected the above assertion. Thus, the dissenting opinion that the court below's disposition was in violation of the rules of evidence cannot be accepted.

No. 2 and the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's creditors' meeting held a general meeting of creditors and auditors during the attendance of the plaintiff's general meeting of creditors and decided to manage the plaintiff's company in order to collect claims, and paid the amount equivalent to the claims with the revenue of the above executives and some of the previous employees, and the plaintiff's representative director was transferred the management right to the plaintiff's representative director. However, according to the above facts found, the creditor's group operated the company with the implied consent of the plaintiff representative director. Thus, according to the above facts found, the plaintiff's legal effect belongs to the plaintiff and the income did not accrue to the plaintiff.

In light of the records, there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence in the process of fact-finding by the court below. Under the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the act of creditor group implicitly ratified the plaintiff representative director. Therefore, it is clear that the legal effect belongs to the plaintiff, and that the creditor group obtained economic benefits that the plaintiff would avoid the obligation by appropriating the income obtained by the creditor's own in repayment of the creditors' claims, and therefore, it is just in the result of the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that it

Nos. 3, 4, and 5, income of a corporation is determined by the method of deducting expenses (expenses) from total income amount, and even if its nature falls under other income under the Income Tax Act, there are no grounds for applying other provisions concerning income in relation to income.

In addition, the license loan income of this case is obvious by the original adjudication that it was calculated by the field investigation (so, it seems that the plaintiff's assertion that the above income was determined by the estimated investigation is due to misunderstanding the contents of the judgment below) as such, when imposing a tax on the omitted income, the total amount of such income should be added to the tax base amount unless there is any evidence that separate expenses were incurred in order to obtain such income (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu1004 delivered on October 13, 1987).

The judgment of the court below that the disposition of imposing corporate tax on the Plaintiff is legitimate in this case where the Plaintiff did not prove that all of the above revenue amount was spent in addition to the general management expenses already included in deductible expenses when the Plaintiff obtained the above revenue, is not an incidental income. However, the decision of the court below that the disposition of imposing corporate tax on the Plaintiff is justified is justified in the result of the judgment below. The argument is groundless.

According to Article 32(5) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 94-2(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on Disposal of Income, where it is evident that the amount included in gross income has been leaked out of the company, but it is unclear that it has been reverted to the representative, it shall be deemed that it has been reverted to the representative. Thus, if there are circumstances to deem that the amount included in gross income has not been leaked out of the company, it shall be deemed that it has been disposed of as a bonus to the representative and cannot be imposed any income tax (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu587, Mar. 22, 198)

The court below recognized that the omitted income amount in this case was appropriated for the repayment of the entire creditor group's claim, but held that Gap-class earned income tax and its defense detailed and disposition based on the premise that it was disposed of as bonus for the representative was lawful, cannot be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the disposal of income under the Corporate Tax Act, or inconsistent with the reasoning of the judgment, which affected the judgment. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are with merit.

No. 7 and there seems to be any error in violation of the rules of evidence in the process of fact-finding that the revenue from the instant license loan did not include value-added tax, and therefore, there is no ground to argue that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the tax base of value-added tax

Ultimately, the appeal against the losing part of the judgment of the court below as to Class A earned income tax and its defense detailed and disposition as of February 14, 1986 is with merit. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded to the court below. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)