2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The taxes imposed shall be revoked in excess of 14,033,680 won.

A. The Plaintiff leased a parcel of land and a building on the land ○○-1 and ground from Kim○○○, Jung-dong, Incheon, Jung-gu, Incheon, ******* Mancheon Industrial Complex.

B. On February 5, 2009, the Incheon Urban Development Corporation accepted the land, land, and land of the place of business ***** In Incheon Industrial Complex, and on February 5, 2009, paid to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 188,300,000, total of KRW 143,800, and KRW 1400,000, in compensation for replacement acquisition of assets that cannot be transferred in the place of business, and compensation for business losses and transfer expenses of transferred assets.

C. However, at the time of global income tax return for 2009, the Plaintiff omitted the above compensation from the income, and the Defendant included 143,800,000, excluding 44,500,000,000, the compensation for alternative acquisition for the assets not transferred among 188,300,000, and the comprehensive income tax for 2009, which was previously notified, adjusted 6,253,63,600, and notified 60,617,000,000 (the first disposition referred to as “the first disposition”).

D. On April 6, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the initial disposition in this case with the purport that "the Plaintiff was required to move and establish the place of business to KRW 167,254,010, and KRW 143,300,00 among the compensation that the Plaintiff received, cannot be included in the total amount of income, and it is unlawful that the Plaintiff was not subject to the special tax reduction or exemption for small and medium enterprises under Article 7 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act." The Defendant applied the special tax reduction or exemption for small and medium enterprises under Article 7 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on April 20, 201, and then the amount of tax again was calculated by applying the special tax reduction or exemption for the small and medium enterprises under Article 7 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and reduced the amount of tax to KRW 55,550,000, which reduced the amount of tax from the initial disposition in this case to KRW 55

E. On May 23, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, but the objection was dismissed on August 26, 201.

F. On June 29, 2012, when the instant lawsuit is pending, the Plaintiff recognized expenses 167,254,010, and 52,937,880, out of 167,250,010, which the Plaintiff claimed as necessary expenses, as capital expenditure, the Plaintiff sought the claim for the corresponding part of the tax amount, and the Defendant recognized 167,254,010, as beneficial expenditure, and 10,536,630, out of 167,254,010, and 55,50,000, the amount of tax corrected and notified as of April 20, 201 to the Plaintiff as of 10,536,630, and the amount of tax calculated as of 351,50,510, and 519, and 930, and the income tax remaining after 19, 209, 209.

[Grounds for Recognition] The entry into the non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 5, and Eul evidence 1, 8, 9, and 10 (each number is omitted, and hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The main and sub-items 1, 2, and 3, i.e., the motor vehicle inspection facilities, the heat processing facilities, and the washing facilities (hereinafter referred to as the "each of the facilities of this case") must be carried out in the lower part to install the facilities, and the lower parts of each of the facilities of this case installed through the civil engineering works must be paid alternative acquisition compensation not to moveable facilities but to moveable facilities, so the "expenses for the plaintiff's assertion" in the attached Table 1 should be excluded from the total revenue.

2) The "expenses for claiming the plaintiff" in the separate sheet No. 1, and the "expenses for claiming the plaintiff" are the amount used to restore the original state by relocating the facilities of each item listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and its full amount should be deducted from the necessary expenses.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Table 2 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) Judgment as to the primary cause of claim

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the respective descriptions and images of Gap evidence 4, 9, 10, and 11, and the testimony and the entire purport of the pleading for witnesses, that is, in order to install each of the facilities of this case, the civil engineering works should be conducted to fix each of the facilities of this case on the ground, and the lower structures made by the civil engineering works function together with each of the facilities of this case, and that the lower structures made by the civil engineering works can not be regarded as having independent value because the physical structure or form of the lower structures are clearly distinguishable from each of the facilities of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion in this part cannot be accepted.

2) Determination as to the conjunctive cause of claim

Article 67 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "where the amount disbursed by a businessman to acquire depreciable assets and the amount corresponding to capital expenditures for the depreciable assets is appropriated as necessary expenses, it shall be deemed depreciation and the scope of depreciation shall be calculated, and "capital expenditures" in paragraph (2) shall mean repair costs spent to extend the lifespan of the depreciable assets owned by the businessman or to increase the real value of the relevant assets, and shall include expenditures for the followings:

The number ① 4, 5, and 6 of the attached Table 1 are the amount used to newly install the facilities in the relocated place of business, i.e., the amount used by the entrepreneur to acquire the depreciable assets, i.e. the number 1, 2, and 3 of the attached Table 1 is the cost spent in the process of moving and installing each of the facilities in this case, and according to the number 2, 3 of the attached Table 16-2 and 3, and the standard balance sheet submitted by the Plaintiff at the global income tax return return for 2008 includes the amount of 225,288 won, compared to the amount indicated in the standard balance sheet submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the global income tax return for 209, the amount of the machinery equipment in this case is considered 13,915,117 won in the previous place of business, and the cost of the new equipment in this case is considered to have increased the value of each of the facilities in question, and the Defendant is considered to have increased the value of each of the facilities in this case into 207.

Therefore, the "cost for claiming the difference" in the attached Table 1 (the "cost for claiming the plaintiff" includes the part that the defendant recognized as a beneficial expenditure during the lawsuit in this case and excluded already from the calculation of the amount of tax (the part that is excluded from the calculation of the amount of tax by the defendant as a beneficial expenditure). The whole amount shall not be included in the necessary expenses for the year concerned, but only the depreciation costs within the scope of scope may be included in the necessary expenses in accordance with Article 67 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.