2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On June 14, 1999, the Plaintiff is a foreign-invested corporation established with its main business purpose to manufacture and sell motor vehicle parts, such as the Moter and power generator.

B. Under Article 121-2(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7003, Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the "former Restriction of Special Taxation Act"), the Plaintiff was entitled to reduction or exemption of foreign investment tax (hereinafter referred to as "foreign investment reduction or exemption") for seven years from the starting date of the establishment year among corporate tax on income from the Start-Mor and the sales business of Llator products, and for three years thereafter, the Plaintiff was entitled to reduction or exemption of foreign investment tax (hereinafter referred to as "foreign investment tax reduction or exemption") for 50% from the starting date of the establishment year. However, from 200 to 201, the Plaintiff was simultaneously subject to the "temporary tax credit" under Article 26 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, etc. from the starting date of the establishment year.

C. The Plaintiff reported and paid the corporate tax for the business year of 2003 to 2006, and applied the tax credit for temporary investment under Article 26 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act after first reduced and exempted the tax amount calculated by the Plaintiff corporation as follows.

D. Unlike the Plaintiff, the Defendant calculated the amount of tax by making an external investment reduction or exemption, which is not subject to the minimum tax, after having an amount of tax for temporary investment to be applied to the calculated tax, and calculated the amount of tax. ① On March 19, 2009, the Plaintiff corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 149,166,930 for special rural development tax for the year 2003. On June 16, 2009, the Plaintiff revoked the portion of KRW 13,560,630 for the tax amount due to the defective filing of the objection, which was 135,606,300 for the amount of tax to be reduced to KRW 286,540,10 for special rural development tax for the year 204, KRW 942,063,90 for corporate tax for the year 205, KRW 982,930 for corporate tax for the year 2006, ② each of the above disposition was made.

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition with the Tax Tribunal on October 22, 2009, but was dismissed on December 31, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4-7, Gap evidence 12, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

(1) According to Article 59 of the Corporate Tax Act, deduction reduction and exemption should be based on ① tax reduction and exemption, ② tax credit, but the Defendant’s order is unlawful.

(2) The Defendant issued a public statement of opinion in the notice of the result of a request for correction, ex officio revision of the request for adjudication, and notice of the result of tax investigation, etc., and issued the instant disposition inconsistent with this, and thus, is unlawful in violation

B. The defendant's assertion is as follows.

(1) The minimum tax provision of Article 132 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is a special provision under Article 59 of the Corporate Tax Act, which sets forth the order of tax reduction and exemption, and it is legitimate to reduce and exempt tax in the order of tax reduction and exemption pursuant to Article 132

(2) Reviewing the appropriateness of facilities and assets meeting the requirements for notification of the result of request for rectification or temporary tax credit for investment, and notifying the result is not a public expression of the order of application of tax credit reduction or exemption. It is difficult to deem that there are special circumstances where trust should be protected by sacrificeing the principle of legality even if it falls under the title of opinion expression.

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Determination

A. The key issue of the instant case is whether the temporary tax credit to which the minimum tax provision under Article 132 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act applies and the tax credit to which the minimum tax provision is not applicable, should be deducted or reduced first.

According to Article 59 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7005 of Dec. 30, 2003), where the provisions on reduction or exemption of corporate tax and the provisions on tax credits are applied simultaneously, such application shall, except as otherwise provided, be applied in the order of tax credits recognized for ① tax reduction or exemption on income for each business year, ② tax credits not recognized for this month, ③ tax credits recognized for this month.

Article 132(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18176, Dec. 30, 2003)

According to Article 126 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (hereinafter "former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act"), in calculating corporate tax on income for each business year of a domestic corporation (excluding corporate tax and additional tax on capital gains from land, etc. under Article 55-2 of the Corporate Tax Act and estimated tax amount prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and referring to corporate tax which does not have such tax credits as prescribed by the Presidential Decree), where the tax amount after the reduction or exemption, etc. under any of subparagraphs of Article 132 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act does not fall short of the tax amount calculated by multiplying the tax base by 15/100, if the tax amount after the inclusion in deductible expenses and income deduction under subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 132 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is below the tax amount calculated by multiplying the tax base by 15/100, the corresponding tax amount shall not be reduced or exempted, and the corresponding tax reduction or exemption in this case constitutes the tax reduction or exemption other than this case.

Article 82 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (attached Form 3) stipulates that the amount of tax reduced or exempted to which the minimum tax under Article 132 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act applies shall be reduced or exempted prior to the reduced or exempted tax amount that is not subject to the above minimum tax.

Article 132(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10068, Mar. 12, 2010; hereinafter “amended Restriction of Special Taxation Act”) (amended by Act No. 10068, Mar. 12, 2010; hereinafter “amended Restriction of Special Taxation Act”) provides that when applying the Restriction of Special Taxation Act at the same time the minimum tax under Article 132 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is applied, reduction or exemption, etc. shall be applied first.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that, prior to the deduction of temporary investment tax pursuant to Article 59 of the Corporate Tax Act, the external investment reduction or exemption should be made first.

(1) According to Article 59(1) of the Corporate Tax Act, foreign investment reduction or exemption constitutes tax reduction or exemption on income for each business year, and temporary tax credit for investment, etc. for investment constitutes tax credits recognized for this month and, except as otherwise expressly provided, external investment reduction or exemption should first be granted

(2) Article 132(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 126(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act shall be calculated first of all corporate tax that is not subject to the minimum tax in calculating corporate tax on income of each business year (Article 132(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "in case of calculating corporate tax, the reduction or exemption, etc. which is subject to the minimum tax is subject to the minimum tax" and "in case of calculating corporate tax, etc., the reduction or exemption, etc. which is subject to the minimum tax" would be double. Therefore, it is natural that "the reduction or exemption, etc. subject to the minimum tax is not subject to the minimum tax" and "the reduction or exemption, etc. which is not subject to the minimum tax", and it is difficult to determine the order of reduction or exemption, etc. which is not subject to the minimum tax under the provision of Article 132(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and therefore, it is difficult to apply the minimum tax reduction or exemption, etc."

(3) Article 82(1)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (attached Form 3) provides for an administrative procedure necessary for reporting and paying corporate tax, so it shall not be deemed a special provision that sets an exception to the order of application of deduction and exemption under Article 59 of the Corporate Tax Act, which is a superior law, is stipulated in the corporate tax law.

(4) Article 132(3) of the amended Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that where the minimum tax is applied at the same time, such as reduction or exemption, etc., to which the minimum tax is applied and other reduction or exemption, etc., it shall be applied prior to external investment reduction or exemption, and accordingly, the above provision sets the order of reduction or exemption differently from Article 59 of the Corporate Tax Act. In light of the principle of no taxation without law as prescribed by Article 59 of the Constitution, the above provision cannot be deemed to be prescribed within the meaning of confirming the order of reduction or exemption under the premise that the above provision is naturally derived from the interpretation of Article 59 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 132(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and the order of reduction or exemption as prescribed by Article 59 of the Corporate Tax Act shall be deemed to be newly prescribed. The above provision was newly established after the business year of the corporate

Therefore, it is illegal that the Defendant first made a temporary tax credit prior to the tax reduction or exemption on foreign investment. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is reasonable (such as the above is sufficient to revoke the disposition of this case, so the judgment on the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not possible).

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.