[법인세경정거부처분취소][미간행]
Samsung Engineering Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys Kang Han-hun et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
The Head of the District Tax Office (Law Firm Dcaro temperature, Attorney Seog-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
November 17, 2009
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2009Guhap7134 decided May 29, 2009
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
1. Purport of claim
The defendant's disposition rejecting to correct the amount of corporate tax of 61,853,175 won for the business year of 2005 against the plaintiff on May 19, 2008 is revoked.
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, and it is stated in the judgment of the court of first instance except in the following cases. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts to be dried;
3. The Act on Special Cases concerning the Restriction of Tax shall be amended into the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.
The 4th parallel parallel 3th parallel 8th parallel 8th parallel 8th parallel 8th parallel 8th parallel.
7.On the 7th page, the following shall be added:
Article 15 (2) 4 of the Act provides that "If an employee of a start-up corporation retires after the lapse of three years from the date on which the stock option was granted, a special case of non-taxation shall be granted only when he exercises the stock option within three months from the date of his retirement, and the application of Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act shall be excluded. Thus, since Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2 do not exercise the stock option within three months from the date of their retirement, they claim that the contract of this case and the exercise of the stock option pursuant to the contract of this case constitutes an unfair act. However, in such a case, the non-party 1 and Non-Party 2 should pay income tax on the profits accrued from the exercise of the stock option, the contract of this case and the exercise of the stock option pursuant to the contract of this case shall not be deemed to constitute an unfair act as a matter of course, and therefore the defendant's above assertion
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)