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

A. The plaintiff is a local public enterprise established by the Daejeon Metropolitan City with the full capital invested in full for the purpose of contributing to the residential stability, improvement of welfare and regional development of citizens through urban and regional development projects, as prescribed by the Local Public Enterprises Act and the Ordinance of the 00 Urban Construction Project, which is a local public enterprise that conducts business operations entrusted by the Daejeon Metropolitan City, and has received subsidies from the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor every year in order to preserve deficit arising from the operation of the Daejeon AA(BB) from around 202 in accordance with the "Support Plan for the Management Diagnosis and Operation Management Management Management Management Management" as part of the entrusted duties. The annual amount of subsidies from 2004 to 2008 are as follows.

(The following table omitted):

B. On November 9, 2009, the Plaintiff requested the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor to provide operational subsidies on the grounds that operating expenses are anticipated to be insufficient as a result of the Daejeon AAAA management diagnosis service in the year 2009, and on December 17, 2009, the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor notified the Plaintiff of the support plan for the operation of the Daejeon AAA subsidy in the year 2009, stating that the support plan amount is 00 won (00 won which is 82.1% out of the amount requested) and the method of subsidization: the subsidy to be reflected in the budget in the first subsequent year in the year 2010.

C. Accordingly, on March 2010, the Plaintiff reported the tax base and tax amount of corporate tax in 2009 and paid corporate tax after appropriating 000 won of the subsidy notified of the support plan as the gross income.

D. On October 4, 2010, the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor notified the Plaintiff that the subsidies for preserving revenues and losses in the operation of Daejeon AAA in 2009 were partially reduced at the time of deliberation by the council of the first budget on the budget for the budget for the prosecution in 2010, and that the subsidies were finally finalized at KRW 000,000 reduced from KRW 00,000, and that thereafter, the Plaintiff received KRW 00,000 from the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor on October 29, 2010.

E. On March 201, the Plaintiff filed a return on the tax base and amount of corporate tax in 2010 with the Defendant, and filed a return on the tax base and amount of tax for the year 2010 by appropriating the reduced amount of KRW 000,000, which was included in the gains in the year 2009

F. However, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the time when the Plaintiff received the notification of confirmation of subsidy payment from the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor as of October 4, 2010; (b) deemed that the said subsidy falls under the gross income in 2010; and (c) as to the reduced 000 won, the said subsidy was included in the tax base in the gross income in 2010; and (d) as to the final subsidy 00 won in the gross income for the year 2010; (b) imposed a disposition on the Plaintiff on March 13, 2012, imposing a tax amount of KRW 00 in the corporate tax in 2010, additional tax of KRW 00, additional tax of 00, and under-reported additional tax of KRW 000 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

G. On August 2, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial with the Tax Tribunal, and on August 2, 2012, the Tax Tribunal made a decision to rectify the tax base and tax amount, and dismiss the remainder of the claim, by correcting the tax base and tax amount as it did not apply penalty tax on the ground that the Plaintiff erroneously appropriated the aforementioned final subsidy amount to be appropriated in the gross income in 2010 and paid the corporate tax corresponding to that portion was already voluntarily paid.

[Evidence Evidence] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 5-1, 2, 3, and Gap evidence 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) According to the provisions of Article 16(1) and Article 40 of the Corporate Tax Act, and the Corporate Tax Act maintain the attitude of establishing rights and obligations as to the time when profits and losses accrue, and the confirmation of rights and obligations as referred to in the above Article refers to the situation in which the possibility of realizing the rights and obligations is objectively recognized. The plaintiff has received subsidies from the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor since 2004, and the plaintiff has received subsidies from the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor in November of each year and has received subsidies in December of the corresponding year, and has received subsidies in 2009, and has received the support plan notification in December 17, 2009, and in light of such other subsidy payment practices, the possibility of rights and obligations with respect to the subsidy of this case can be deemed to have reached an objective point of view in December 17, 2009, and thus, the subsidy of this case should be attributed to profits and losses for the business year in which the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor received the subsidy of this case.

2) Even if the time when the subsidy of this case reverts to 2010 business year, the plaintiff interpreted the time when the subsidy of this case belongs to 2010 business year, and there was no intention to distort trade order or to evade corporate tax, and since the subsidy of this case has the nature of preserving the amount of losses in the corresponding business year and has been paid in response to the amount of losses each year, it was difficult for the plaintiff to make an accurate decision on the time when the subsidy reverts to the defendant by making a return and payment of tax base and tax amount prior to the corresponding business year, and in this case, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff made a legitimate reason for underreporting the corporate tax of the plaintiff related to the subsidy of this case in 2010.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) As to the period of attribution of the instant subsidy

Article 40(1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the fiscal year of accrual of earnings and losses of a domestic corporation for each fiscal year shall be the fiscal year to which the date on which the gross income and deductible expenses are determined belongs. In order for the domestic corporation to have become final and conclusive gross income, it shall be considerably mature in the feasibility of the rights causing the income, and it shall not be deemed that the gross income has been established merely when the rights are established. Here, whether the rights causing the income are considerably mature in the feasibility of the realization of the rights, or not uniformly, and it shall not be determined by comprehensively considering the specific nature and contents of each right and the circumstances of the law and fact-finding (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1157, Sept. 29, 201). Since the tax base of the instant case is the following circumstances known by the facts, i.e., the Plaintiff’s subsidy for 2004 to 2008, which should be reflected in the budget for under-reported 2010 years prior to the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor.

2) As to the phone board for legitimate reasons with respect to the underreporting of the instant case

In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims under the tax law, additional tax is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the Act when a taxpayer violates all kinds of obligations, such as reporting and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, and the taxpayer's intentional or gross negligence does not constitute a justifiable reason that does not constitute a violation of the duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du4689, Nov. 3, 2002). Even if the Plaintiff mistakens the timing for attribution of profit and loss of the subsidy in accordance with his own decision by applying the principles, etc. of subsidies payment practices as mentioned above, and the principles under the tax law, it is merely a mistake due to the misunderstanding of the exact contents and meaning of the laws and regulations, and it is difficult to view that there is a distortion of transaction order or tax evasion, etc. in imposing additional tax under the tax law, and that it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff already paid the subsidy in this case as corporate tax for 200 years and that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to obtain additional tax for 2000 years and its principal tax.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.