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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s notification of change in income amount of KRW 000,00,000 on January 2, 2014 to the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

A. On July 26, 2011, the Plaintiff, a company operating business to prevent environmental pollution, transferred a patent right owned by it (hereinafter “instant patent right”) to Kim 00, a shareholder, and entered into an exclusive license agreement, and paid KRW 00,000,000 to Kim 0 in the business year 2012 (hereinafter “instant fee”).

B. The Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant fee that the Plaintiff paid to Kim 00 was transferred only in the name of the patent right and illegally leaked the company’s funds; (b) disposed of as a bonus reverted to Kim 00 in 2012; and (c) issued a notice of change of income amount (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on January 6, 2014.

B. The Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant fee that the Plaintiff paid to Kim 00 was transferred only in the name of the patent right and illegally leaked the company’s funds; (b) disposed of as bonus belonging to Kim 00 in 2012; and (c) issued a notice of change of income amount (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on January 6, 2014.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 23, 2014.

(1)[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5 (if available, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although Kim 00 was in a position to transfer "the right to obtain a patent at the time of the patent invention as an actual inventor of the patent right at the time of the patent, the Plaintiff entrusted the Plaintiff with the right to obtain a patent since it was not possible to file a patent application under his/her name due to bad credit at that time. The Plaintiff filed an application for the patent of this case under the above trust and completed the registration. However, Kim 00 notified the Plaintiff of his/her intent to terminate the title trust in order to obtain the patent of this case under his/her own name, and sent a cooperation notice on July 8, 201, and the Plaintiff recognized that Kim 00 was a real inventor of the patent of this case after the board of directors resolution on July 20, 201, and approved the transfer of patent right and the payment of compensation. Accordingly, it is unreasonable to deem that the Plaintiff transferred the patent right to Kim 00 upon the termination of title trust as a bonus for the transfer of the patent right of this case to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff’s transfer of the right to obtain a patent of this case).

Even if it is impossible to recognize the legitimacy of patent transfer due to family title trust or termination of agreement, the instant fee is merely a payment that the Plaintiff received from Kim 00 for the transfer of “the right to obtain a patent” in around 2012, and thus, it cannot be deemed an unfair outflow of company’s funds, and thus, the instant disposition is unreasonable.

B. Determination

1) Determination on the assertion on title trust

We examine whether Kim 00, at the time of the application of the patent right in this case, title trust was made to the Plaintiff.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 10 through 13, the purport of each of the testimony of 00, 100, 100, 100, and 100, Kim 00 has made a considerable contribution in making an invention of the patent right of this case. However, in light of the following circumstances, ① Kim 00 is the largest shareholder of the plaintiff (39.97%) and the actual inspection owner, ② was affiliated with the research institute affiliated with the plaintiff, and received benefits from the plaintiff, ② the plaintiff included in the financial statements of 2004-2010 to the president of the account, the industrial property right (patent), the research and development cost was also included in the profit and loss statement, ③ the inventor of the patent right of this case was under the joint name of the plaintiff such as 00, 300, Kim Kim 3 only, 400, 200, 200, and 300, the patent right of this case's testimony that the plaintiff had not been granted exemption from the patent right of this case.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2) Determination as to the assertion that the transfer was rescinded by agreement and paid for reasonable consideration

Article 52 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the head of a tax office or the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment may calculate the income amount of a domestic corporation for each business year regardless of the act or calculation of the income amount of the corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Calculation of wrongful acts") where he/she deems that the calculation of the income amount of the domestic corporation has reduced unreasonably the tax burden on the corporation's income due to transactions with a specially related person prescribed by Presidential Decree." In applying Article 52 (2) of the Corporate Tax Act, it provides that "The tax rate, interest rate, rent, exchange rate, and other similar rate; hereafter referred to as "market price" in this Article) shall be applied or judged to be applied to sound social norms and commercial practices and ordinary transactions between a person who is not a specially related person." In applying paragraphs (1) through (3), Article 87 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the matters necessary for the type of wrongful acts and the calculation of the market price of the corporation shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree." In addition, Article 87 (1) of "the corporation or the company's.

In this context, the term "act of wrongful calculation" means a system in which a corporation unfairly evades or reduces tax burden by abusing the various forms of transactions listed in each subparagraph of Article 88 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act without a reasonable method with a person having a special relationship. This is limited to cases where the person having a tax authority denies it and makes it objectively and reasonably reasonable in a manner prescribed by law. In light of the economic person's position, the economic rationality is neglected by calculating an unnatural or unreasonable act. Determination of the existence of economic rationality is based on whether the transaction is abnormal in light of sound social norms or commercial practices, and the determination of whether the transaction is made based on whether the transaction is made in question with a person with a special relationship, and the special circumstances at the time of the transaction should also be taken into account, such as the transaction price between the persons with a special relationship, special circumstances at the time of the transaction.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Du14257 Decided December 13, 2007, etc.)

In light of the relevant laws and legal principles as seen earlier, considering various circumstances such as the Plaintiff’s initial cost burden, the Plaintiff would have reverted to the Plaintiff by an agreement between the Plaintiff and the inventor, including Kim 00. As such, given that the burden of tax, including corporate tax, has been significantly increased due to a sudden increase in sales after a considerable period of time, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant fee to Kim 00 without compensation, and rather, the Plaintiff’s act of paying the instant fee as patent license fee is bound to be considered as a result of a lack of economic rationality, and thus, it is subject to

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that this part of the patent is not unfair outflow of the company's funds since the plaintiff transferred the patent right to Kim 00 and paid the patent license fee to Kim Jong-soo as a result of the cancellation of agreement.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as there is no ground.