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

A. The plaintiff, a corporation engaged in banking business, entered into a contract with multiple trustees, such as BB, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "trustees of this case") to entrust research and development projects (hereinafter referred to as the "contract of this case"). B. The plaintiff spent 000 won technical service development expenses (hereinafter referred to as the "research and development expenses of this case") according to the contract of this case, and it is reasonable for the plaintiff to re-entrusted 100 won to the dedicated department of this case under Article 10 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9272 of Dec. 26, 2008) after deducting 100 won of research and development expenses from the dedicated department of this case's dedicated department of this case's 2008 corporate tax new and new 2008 corporate tax for the business year after deducting 100 won of research and development expenses of this case's dedicated department of this case's 10.3 billion won of research and development expenses.

[Reasons for Recognition] The whole purport of the arguments and evidence Nos. 1-1-2, and Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff

If research and development services have been entrusted to a business with a department exclusively in charge of research and development, regardless of whether it has a department exclusively in charge of re-entrusted and re-entrusted enterprises, and the expenses incurred from entrustment shall be subject to tax credits under Article 10 (1) of the former Tax Special

(2) Defendant

(A) First of all, it was not revealed whether the costs for the entrustment of research and development activities claimed by the Plaintiff were used in research and development activities. Furthermore, in the interpretation of Article 9(5) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the establishment of the computer system is not considered to meet these requirements." (b) The Special Tax Treatment Control Act separates the entrustment and re-entrustment, and Article 10(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act applicable to this case, and Article 9(2) [Attachment 6] [Attachment 6] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21307 of Feb. 4, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act"), and Article 9(2) [Attachment 6] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590 of Feb. 2, 2012; and (3) the expenses for the entrustment of research and development are not subject to special tax credit.

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether research and development constitutes "research and development"

Article 9 (5) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "Research and Development shall be conducted to achieve scientific or technical progress, and to develop new service and service delivery system." As seen above, there is no difficulty to regard the services entrusted by the Plaintiff as research and development since the services are built of a systematic and comprehensive system to realize large financial business, enhance core business and service competitiveness, and achieve the optimal and efficient operation of information and communications technology, and achieve the optimal operation and efficiency of information and communications technology operation. Meanwhile, although the term in the above provision includes the word in the word in the word in the word in the word in the word in the word in the word in the word in the word, the research and development does not aim at acquiring a patent, and it is not possible to interpret that the research and development in this context must be in line with the requirement of the patent in order to meet the research and development as alleged by the Defendant, and that the term in this case

In addition to the above language and text, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations is not allowed to be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6781, May 27, 2004). Article 10(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 9(2) [Attachment 6] Item b(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act only provides for the tax credit for the cost of searching for technology development services to domestic or foreign research institutes or dedicated departments, and there is no provision for the tax credit for the above subcontractor who is the taxpayer of the above dedicated department, depending on where the above statutes are sub-entrusted or owned by the dedicated department of the dedicated department. In particular, it is inevitable to interpret that the above provision is clearly included in the tax credit subject to sub-entrustment, and that it is difficult to 20 years or more for the Plaintiff to claim that the dedicated department should be re-entrusted to the dedicated department as well as the 10th judgment or 20th judgment.

Therefore, the instant disposition that the instant trustee did not receive a tax credit for research and human resources development expenses under Article 10 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.