The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. The rejection of unfair calculation under Article 52 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same) applies to a corporation where it unfairly evades or reduces tax burden by abusing multiple types of transactions listed in each subparagraph of Article 8(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19891, Feb. 28, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply) without a reasonable method from a person with a special relationship while engaging in a transaction with a person with a special relationship, it is deemed that the person with the authority to impose tax denies or reduces tax burden by denying such transactions and using them by iceing the types of transactions in a manner prescribed in the statutes. The determination of whether an economic rationality exists shall be made only when it is deemed that the person with the authority to impose tax is deemed to have neglected the economic rationality by calculating an unreasonable and unreasonable act from the standpoint of an economic person. The determination of whether the transactions are unlawful or unreasonable in light of sound social norms or commercial practice (see, 2000.

Article 8(1)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that “The market price of services, which serves as the basis for whether a corporation is a specially related person with a higher rate than the market price, at a rate of return on assets or services than the market price,” as one of the grounds for denial of unfair act. According to Article 89 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, “The market price of services, which is the basis for whether the corporation is to be provided with services” can be calculated on the basis of the generally traded price between many and unspecified persons (Paragraph 1) and the appraisal price if there is no example of such transactions (Paragraph 2), and if it is impossible to calculate the market price on the basis of these methods, it should be calculated on the basis of the difference between the amount (including direct and indirect expenses) required for the provision of services and the cost of services provided to a person other than a specially related person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da52501, Apr. 2, 2005).

Examining the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the computation of market price or the principle of no taxation without law and the requirements for denial of wrongful calculation, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.