The percentage of the work among the entire work in the headquarters has been diminished rather than that of the head office.

It is obvious that the wages received from the plaintiff are equal to those of the plaintiff's head office;

In full view of the fact that the personnel expenses of dispatched personnel were directly related to the plaintiff's business.

It is reasonable to exclude non-deductible expenses from deductible expenses.

5) Whether the Defendant’s inclusion in deductible expenses for personnel expenses of dispatched personnel for several years is entirely problematic.

Even if not, it cannot be viewed as an expression of public opinion subject to protection of trust.

the business entity that did not have maintained the principle of protection of trust, and that disposed of differently

Inasmuch as the Yellow and Business Method was not completely identical to the Plaintiff, it is against the principle of equality.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.

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

On April 12, 2016, the portion of corporate tax of 195,971,860, corporate tax of 2011 for the Plaintiff, of 123,096,810, corporate tax of 2012, corporate tax of 113,151,350, corporate tax of 2013, corporate tax of 110,031,720, corporate tax of 2014, corporate tax of 104,448,290, corporate tax of 2011, corporate tax of 81,981,980, corporate tax of 201, corporate tax of 74,966,280, corporate tax of 2013, corporate tax of 60,752,470, corporate tax of 2014, is revoked.

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that manufactures and sells automobile parts. The Plaintiff is a parent company that holds 100% of the shares of AA in China as its subsidiary, a foreign subsidiary. The Plaintiff is a parent company that holds 100% of the shares of AA.

B. From December 1, 2015 to March 16, 2016, the Director of the △△△△ Regional Tax Office conducted an integrated investigation of the Plaintiff’s corporate tax. From 2010 to 2014, the Plaintiff deemed 1,235,809,478 won appropriated as personnel expenses for the dispatched personnel of AAA from 2010 to 2014 as non-business expenses, and notified the Defendant of the disposition of dismissal of the Plaintiff to include 162,50,000 won for disposal of defective raw materials in deductible expenses, and 162,50,50,000 won for the computerized operation expenses of the Chinese local corporation. Accordingly, on April 12, 2016, the Defendant received a request for adjudication from the Plaintiff on 2015,97, 200 won for the first time, 201, 200 won for the first time, 2013, 13,14, 2015.

A. Of the Plaintiff’s local subsidiaries, AA is a company that directs, supervises, and supervises 100% of the Plaintiff’s Chinese subsidiaries, and maintains the quality of products produced in AA is closely related to the increase in the Plaintiff’s profit. The employees dispatched to AA are also closely related to the increase in the Plaintiff’s business policies, production plans, quality maintenance, instructions for and reports on funds management, meetings of external companies, preparation of various kinds of books, daily funds, daily reports, activities in the strong local area, and game reports, and domestic benefits were paid from the Plaintiff, and foreign benefits were paid from the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is justifiable to include personnel expenses of the employees dispatched to AA, other than the Plaintiff, in deductible expenses.

B. The Defendant’s disposition of this case is an act that contradicts the Plaintiff’s trust and disposes of differently from other companies, thereby violating the principle of equity.

3. Determination

A. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of each of the above evidence, Gap evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, 9, 17, 18, 20, 24, and 25, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including serial numbers) and the overall purport of the pleadings. (1) The plaintiff is a cooperative and subcontractor of DD who supplies nits (electric distribution) to BB andCC cars, and the sales ratio of DD to the plaintiff's total sales is 80% or less. The plaintiff and DD were established in China where B andCC cars entered in order to reduce logistics expenses. The plaintiff and D were subject to strict quality control from DD or its overseas subsidiaries. From 2011 to 2014, the sales ratio of D's total sales to D's total sales to D' and D's total sales to D's total sales to D' and D's total sales to D's total sales to 16% or more of the plaintiff's total sales to D's total sales to 2616% or more of D's total sales to 26.

2) The employee dispatched from the Plaintiff to AA prepared a written pledge that he/she would not engage in any act in violation of the regulations and company instructions while serving in China, and the Plaintiff also represents the organization that belongs to the Plaintiff’s head office. Employees dispatched to AA are expected to move to the Plaintiff’s head office. The dispatched employees are planned to move to the Plaintiff’s head office according to the Plaintiff’s instructions. The dispatched employees directed the local employed employees of AA, establish and implement the production plan of AA, manage the funds of AA, etc., and obtain approval from the Plaintiff from the officers and employees of the Plaintiff from time to time in addition to the monthly business report on the specific operation of AA, as well as the monthly business report.

3) The employees dispatched to AA received wages classified into domestic benefits and foreign benefits. Domestic benefits received by the dispatched employees were the same as the domestic wage system, and foreign benefits were the amount of wages, accommodation rents, expenses for accommodation management, basic leave program, and expenses for preserving local staying expenses from 2010 to 2014. The ratio of overseas benefits to the dispatched employees is approximately 2.15 (round 2.15 (round 3 decimal point).

B. The above facts are determined based on the following facts.

1) It is recognized that the Plaintiff needed to establish AA for the stable transaction with DD, and that there was a need to dispatch the Plaintiff’s employees for the quality control of the products produced in AA. However, the Plaintiff and AA were extremely low in the direct sales and purchase transaction, and there was no other disclosure how the Plaintiff’s profits would lead to the Plaintiff’s direct profits. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appears to be related to the business of AA in terms of the Plaintiff and DD’s transaction without any impediment to the Plaintiff’s transaction without difficulties, and that the Plaintiff’s assets and profitability were increased as a shareholder holding 10% shares, and that the transaction between AA and DD was clearly distinguishable without mixing with the Plaintiff and DD transaction. 2) In light of the fact that the transaction between AA and DD was conducted without any interference with the Plaintiff and DD transaction, the indirect and indirect relation is merely the fact that the transaction between AA and D and D without any impediment to the Plaintiff’s transaction.

3) Article 19(2) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the losses or expenses incurred or incurred in connection with the business of the subsidiary are generally accepted as ordinary or directly related to profit-making expenses" as a shareholder holding 100% shares of the subsidiary. In light of the fact that the parent company and the subsidiary must exercise shareholders' rights, such as dividends, in principle, in order to take profits generated from the subsidiary, the expenses incurred from the subsidiary can not be considered as ordinary expenses of the parent company, and that it is directly related to the parent company's profit. If part of the expenses incurred from the subsidiary can be treated as the expenses incurred from the parent company, it is unclear whether only certain expenses can be handled, and in this case, it cannot be said that there is more close relation to the subsidiary company's business than other expenses incurred in the AA's product quality control, in particular, expenses incurred by dispatched personnel for the subsidiary company's product quality control, and the Plaintiff's business is not a subsidiary company's own management and supervision of the subsidiary company, as prescribed by the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act.

4) Therefore, even if dispatched employees produced products of AA, managed funds, and reported from time to time to time to the Plaintiff while conducting local business activities for sales pursuant to the Plaintiff’s instruction and supervision, it cannot be deemed that they were engaged in the Plaintiff’s inherent business activities. Moreover, the labor cost sharing ratio of dispatched employees is 2.15 (Plaintiffs): 1 (AA); the Plaintiff bears more than twice the amount; the dispatched employees, as alleged by the Plaintiff, partially take charge of the Plaintiff’s duties.