2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu and purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke all corporate tax of 000 won for the business year 2007, March 8, 2013, and corporate tax of 000 won for the business year 2008, April 10, 2013, to the plaintiff.

The reasoning for this court's explanation is as follows: (a) the second and seventh court's second court's "28.12.28.12.26.12.208.12.26." (b) the plaintiff's conjunctive assertion in the court of the first instance is identical to the ground for the first court's decision, except for addition in the second and second court's judgment, and therefore, (c) it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to Article 18-3(1)4 of the former Corporate Tax Act and Article 17-3(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, where a domestic corporation (subsidiary) has invested in an affiliate company among the dividend income received from another domestic corporation (subsidiary company), the amount calculated according to the “ratio of the book value of stocks, etc. acquired by investing in an affiliate company X 100% in the affiliate company’s investment in the parent company’s subsidiary company to the book value of stocks, etc. acquired by the parent company.” In 2007 as a shareholder of 100% of the AA, the book value of stocks, etc. acquired by the Plaintiff by investing in the affiliate company in the 2007, 250,19,864,195 won, and the total book value of stocks, etc. acquired by the 305,000,000,0000 won, 383,219,6420,000,000 won from AA’s investment in the affiliate company.

Here, the book value of shares, etc. means the value of shares that reflects the valuation profit and loss of the equity law in consideration of the net asset change of the subsidiary

1) Book value of stocks, etc. acquired by investing in an affiliate affiliate company X 100% X 100% of the import dividends / Book value of stocks, etc. acquired by the parent company after

B. Determination

(i)The relevant provisions;

The former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9267 of Dec. 26, 2008)

Article 18-3 (Non-Inclusion of Dividend Amount in Gross Income)

(1) Where the sum computed under the provisions of subparagraphs 1 and 2 exceeds the sum computed under the provisions of subparagraphs 3 and 4, among the dividend income (excluding any dividend income subject to the provisions of Article 18-2) that a domestic corporation (excluding a non-profit domestic corporation as defined in subparagraph 2 of Article 1; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) receives from another domestic corporation in which the corresponding corporation has made an equity investment, such excess amount shall not be included in its gross income in calculating

1. The amount computed by multiplying the dividend amount received from an invested domestic corporation by 50/100 where an investing domestic corporation has invested in excess of 50/100 (30/100 in case of stock-listed or KOSDAQ-listed corporations) of the total number of issued stocks or equity investment shares of such invested domestic corporation: Provided, That the total number of issued stocks or the total amount of equity investment shares has been invested, it means the amount equivalent

2. The amount computed by multiplying the dividend amount received from an invested domestic corporation by 30/100 where the corresponding investing domestic corporation has invested at a ratio lower than that provided in subparagraph 1;

3. The amount calculated, as prescribed by the Presidential Decree by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 18-2 (1) 3 where any interest on borrowings has been paid by any domestic corporation in each business year.

4. Where another domestic corporation that has paid dividends to the relevant domestic corporation (limited to where it is an affiliated company of the relevant domestic corporation) has invested in an affiliate company, the amount calculated by applying mutatis mutandis Article 18-2 (1) 4-2 as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21302, Feb. 4, 2009)

Article 17-3 (Non-Inclusion of Ordinary Corporation's Received Dividend Amount in Gross Income)

(4) The amount that is calculated under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree in Article 18-3 (1) 4 of the Act shall mean the amount that is calculated by multiplying the ratio under subparagraph 1 and the ratio under subparagraph 2 by the dividend amount received from another domestic corporation (hereafter in this Article, referred to as the "dividend payment corporation") that has invested in an affiliate:

1. Where the ratio of investments made by a domestic corporation in a dividend payment corporation falls under the main sentence of Article 18-3 (1) 1 of the Act, 50/100, where it falls under the proviso to the same subparagraph, 100/100 and where it falls under Article 18-3 (1) 2 of the Act, 30/100. In such cases, where there are two or more dividend payment corporations, the ratio shall be that corresponding to each dividend payment corporation;

2. The ratio of the book value of stocks, etc. acquired by investing in an affiliate of the relevant dividend payment corporation in the amount invested by the relevant dividend payment corporation from a domestic corporation (referring to the book value of stocks, etc. acquired by a domestic corporation by investing in the dividend payment corporation). In this case, if the ratio exceeds 100/100, such ratio shall be deemed 100/100

[Attachment] The Plaintiff asserts that the book value of shares, etc. should be based on the value of shares, taking into account the changes in net assets of the subsidiary company, in calculating the amount of re-investment reduction pursuant to Article 17-3 (4) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

The book value of shares in the calculation of the reduction of the re-investment shall not be deemed to mean the value of shares that reflects the evaluation profit and loss of equity law as asserted by the Plaintiff, and it shall be deemed to be the original acquisition value recorded in the book, i.e., the book value in the tax calculation.

2) For the purpose of Article 18-2 (1) 4, the term “subsidiary” means the subsidiary’s dividend amount received from the corresponding subsidiary in case where the corresponding subsidiary has invested in an affiliate.

an amount calculated by multiplying the ratio prescribed by the Presidential Decree by taking into account the investment amount.

㈎ 구 법인세법 제18조의2 제1항 4호는 당해 자회사가 계열회사에 "출자한 금액"을 감안하도록 규정하고 있고, 구 법인세법 제17조의3 제4항 제2호도 당해 배당지급법인이 계열회사에 출자하여 취득한 주식 등의 장부가액이 당해 배당지급법인이 내국법인으로부터 "출자받은 금액"(내국법인이 배당지급법인에 출자하여 취득한 주식 등의 장부가액을 말한다)에서 차지하는 비율이라 규정하고 있어 기본적으로 출자하거나 출자받은 금액을 기준으로 그 비율을 정하고 있을 뿐3)이고 자회사의 운영으로 발생한 평가이익이나 손실을 반영한 이른바 지분법 평가손익을 반영한 주식의 가액을 전제로 한다고 보이지 않는다.

3) However, the investment is based on the book value of shares, as it exists in the account book by holding shares.

㈏ 주식 등의 장부가액을 원고 주장과 같이 자회사의 순자산 변동을 고려한 지분법평가손익을 반영한 주식의 가액으로 보게 되면, 자회사의 운영실적에 따라 모회사가 보유한 주식의 가액이 매년 달라지므로 동일한 금액의 수입배당금을 받더라도 재출자 차감비율이 매년 달라져 불합리하다.

㈐ 구법인세법 제18조의3 제1항 제4호는 일반 내국법인이 연쇄적인 출자를 통하여계열회사를 확장하는 것을 억제하기 위하여 익금불산입되는 수입배당금액의 범위를 제한하는 규정으로서 2005. 12. 31. 법률 7838호로 개정되면서 신설되었다가 이중과세 조정이라는 제도의 취지에 부합하지 아니한다고 하여 2008. 12. 26 법률 제9267호로 개정된 구 법인세법에서 삭제된 것임은 원고 주장과 같으나 이러한 사정들이 주식 등 장부가액을 지분법 평가손익을 반영한 주식의 가액으로 보아야 한다는 근거가 될 수 없다.

㈑ 국세청의 구 법인세법 기본 통칙4)은 기본적으로 주식 등의 장부가액을 세무계산상의 장부가액으로 보고 있다.

4) General Rule 18-3 - 17-17-3 of the Corporate Tax Framework General Rule 18-3 - In the calculation of the amount of non-taxation from income dividends, the term "net value of stocks, etc. of another domestic corporation" means the book value for tax calculation, and the book value of stocks, etc., for which dividend amounts under each subparagraph of Article 18-2(2) of the Act accrue shall not be included.

【Finality

Therefore, in calculating the amount of re-investment reduction under Article 17-3 (4) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the book value, such as shares, is reasonable to view it as the book value for tax calculation, should be viewed as the value of shares reflecting the appraisal profit and loss

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.