1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why the court should explain the instant case are added to the first instance court's decision as stated in Paragraph 2 below.

Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, inasmuch as the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the first instance, except for or after the use thereof.

It shall be quoted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A portion used for adding or cutting;

○ The following shall be added to the last part of Chapter 4, Chapter 17:

Basic small and medium enterprises of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises before amendment by Presidential Decree No. 24799

Enforcement Decree of the Act, and the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises amended by Presidential Decree No. 24799, is amended.

Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises ("Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act").

Part 5, Paragraph 19, which is the intention of not being 'the 19th act', and thus the fair and competitive promotion is promoted.

The purpose is to create a business management environment."

○ 6. Sections 16 through 7.1 are as follows.

The Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act") amended by Presidential Decree No. 26070 on February 3, 2015.

Article 2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act ("Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act")

- 3-

reasonable interpretation of subsection 2, i.e., that a company does not constitute a small or medium enterprise in accordance with the standards of the relevant

It is alleged that the interpretation of the grace period for small and medium enterprises is explicitly verified.

section 3.

However, Article 2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act after its amendment shall be interpreted as alleged by the plaintiff.

Article 4 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act after the amendment does not have any grounds for the first time after January 1, 2015.

subsection (1) of this section shall apply in the event of a cause not to be a small or medium enterprise.

The Plaintiff is defined as a small and medium enterprise in accordance with the relevant business standards before January 1, 2015, as the Plaintiff prescribes.

under the premise that the grace period is not applicable to a small or medium enterprise.

Considering the Plaintiff’s assertion, Article 2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

It can not be seen that the legislation was made to simply confirm the existing interpretation.

The ○ 7th parallel 2 to 9th parallel are as follows.

4) The Plaintiff: (a) Article 9 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises after the amendment is a different company.

The fact that shares are owned by a small or medium enterprise notwithstanding the standards for related enterprises;

Since the amendment, 2014, after the time of application of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises;

The claim that the grace period for small and medium enterprises should also be applied to the plaintiff in 2015.

section 3.

However, the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises is the subject of policy to foster small and medium enterprises

Although the standards for the category of small and medium enterprises are stipulated in the category of business itself, they are not restricted;

The Restriction of Special Taxation Act and its Enforcement Decree shall be required by part of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises.

Small and Medium Enterprises in a particular category of business, setting forth the subject of special taxation in tax policy consideration;

otherwise provided in the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises concerning the requirements and scope of small and medium enterprises, such as restrictions;

- 4-

The main sentence of Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and restriction on special taxation.

The Act and its Enforcement Decree shall apply to small and medium enterprises due to expansion of their scale or amendment to the Act.

Any provision that defers as a small or medium enterprise for a certain period of time (Article 2);

Article 2 (2) and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction on Special Taxation Act, the grounds for deferment, the grace period and the date of commencement, small and medium enterprises

In light of the fact that the Framework Act on Enterprises prescribes it differently from that of the Framework Act, the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Whether or not a small or medium enterprise is subject to special taxation prescribed by small or medium enterprises

It shall be determined by the Special Restriction Act and its Enforcement Decree, and it shall be determined by the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises.

Nor may (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du10458, Apr. 23, 2015).

Ultimately, the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is subject to special taxation under tax policy consideration.

It is reasonable to determine whether a small enterprise falls under the category of small enterprises differently from the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises.

Whether it constitutes a small or medium enterprise subject to special tax reduction or exemption under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

In accordance with the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Special Cases concerning the Restriction of Small and Medium Enterprises, the basis for small and medium enterprises after amendment

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit, since it is not determined in accordance with the Enforcement Decree of the Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.