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

A. The Plaintiff runs the business of manufacturing and selling ○-related products.

B. The Plaintiff established a research institute (R&D) at 00 cities, recruited researchers from a master and doctoral degree, and had them work as an employee exclusively in charge of research and human resources development expenses, including wages paid to researchers from the above master and doctoral degree at the time of filing a corporate tax return in 2011, pursuant to Article 10 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11133, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same "former Restriction of Special Taxation Act"), but applied for a tax credit of 00 won (referring to 00 won equivalent to 00 won for master and doctoral degree labor expenses, among them) pursuant to Article 10 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11133, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter the "former Restriction of Special Taxation Act"). However, as the loss occurred in the business year 2011, the amount of the above research and human resources development

C. Meanwhile, Article 132(1)3 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act excluded the amount of tax credit for research and human resources development expenses corresponding to the amount of tax credit for tin and doctor’s personnel expenses from the minimum tax credit, but Article 132(1)3 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 111133, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter “the Restriction of Special Taxation Act”) provides that the amount of tax credit for research and human resources development expenses equivalent to the amount of tax credit for tin and doctor’s personnel expenses of a non-small and medium

D. In filing a corporate tax return for the business year 2015, the Plaintiff reported corporate tax carried forward pursuant to Article 144(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which had not been deducted for the business year 2011, including the key tax amount of the instant case. At the time, the Plaintiff reported corporate tax by including the key tax amount of the instant case in the amount of research and human resources development expenses subject to the minimum tax exemption pursuant to Article 132(1)3 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

E. After December 13, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the reduction of corporate tax amount of KRW 000 for the business year 2015 on the ground that the instant issues should be excluded from the subject of the minimum tax amount, but the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the result of the claim for correction within two months from the date of the request for correction.

F. On February 13, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation with the Tax Tribunal on April 18, 2017, by deeming that the Defendant’s rejection disposition was issued on February 13, 2017, which was two months after the filing of the said application pursuant to the proviso to Article 45-2(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (hereinafter “instant disposition”). However, the Plaintiff was dismissed on October 24, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Considering the language and purport of the revised Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the purport of its amendment, and the taxpayer’s trust protection and predictability, etc., the key tax amount of this case, which was already determined and conclusive in the 201 year in which Article 132 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act was applied, shall be interpreted not to be subject to the minimum tax limit, not Article 132 of the revised Restriction of Special Taxation Act, but Article 132 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is applied. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction on a different premise

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

A) In order to encourage research and development, Article 10 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that research and human resources development expenses paid by a domestic corporation shall be subject to tax credit, while Article 132(1)3 of the same Act provides that even a corporation that is not a small or medium enterprise, an amount calculated by subtracting an amount calculated by multiplying the amount of tax credit for research and human resources development expenses for the pertinent business year by the ratio of the amount generated by tin and doctor’s labor expenses from the amount of tax credit for research and human resources development expenses for the relevant business year shall be subject to the minimum tax. However, Article 132(1)3 of the revised Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that all the amount of tax credit for research and human resources development expenses of a corporation that is not a small or medium enterprise shall be subject to the minimum tax credit. In addition, Article 1 of the Addenda to the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (No. 11133, Dec. 31, 201) provides that Article 2(1) of the same Act provides that "the amended provisions concerning corporate tax shall apply from the first

B) Meanwhile, Article 18(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "in interpreting and applying tax-related Acts, a taxpayer's property right shall not be unfairly infringed in light of the equity of taxation and the unity of the pertinent provisions." Under the principle of no taxation without law, a tax-related legal provision shall be interpreted in accordance with the legal text unless there are special circumstances, and it shall not be permitted to expand or analogically interpret it without reasonable grounds. However, where it is necessary to clarify its meaning through mutual interpretation between legal provisions, it is inevitable to make a combined interpretation in light of legislative purpose and purpose to the extent that it does not undermine legal stability and predictability oriented by the principle of no taxation without law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Du4438, Feb. 15, 2008; 201Du2781, Jan. 23, 2014).

2) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the contents, legislative purport, amendment process, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 5 of the above Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and the purport of the whole pleadings, it is reasonable to conclude that Article 132 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act does not apply to the tax amount of this case, not the revised Article 132 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and the minimum tax amount is not applied. Accordingly, the defendant's disposition rejecting the plaintiff's request for correction of the tax amount of this case on a different premise is unlawful, and the plaintiff's above assertion is with merit.

① In this case, the issue of this case, which was related to the personnel expenses for tin and doctor’s degree paid by the Plaintiff in the business year 201 prior to the enforcement of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, is whether the tax amount at the time was subject to the minimum tax pursuant to Article 132(1)3 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. The Addenda to the Restriction of Special Taxation Act only provides for the general application period of the amended Act and the amended Act on corporate tax, and does not provide for clear provisions as to whether the carried-over tax amount after the enforcement of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is subject to the minimum tax. Therefore, it should be determined whether the minimum tax is applied to the issue tax of this case through the combined interpretation of Article 132(1)3 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, taking into account the language and text, legislative purpose, purpose, etc. of the amended Act.

② However, considering the following circumstances, Article 132(1)3 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act should be construed as applying the tax credit for the personnel expenses of tin and doctor’s degree incurred after January 1, 2012, which was the enforcement date of the said Act, to the effect that Article 132(1)3 of the same Restriction of Special Taxation Act applies, and the Addenda does not have any transitional provision related to the said provision. Thus, it cannot be viewed otherwise,

Article 10 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 85,443,341,138, which was enforced at the time of the business year 201, provides that a domestic corporation shall be entitled to the tax credit for research and human resources development expenses incurred by the domestic corporation in order to encourage research and development. Article 132(1)3 of the same Act provides that the minimum tax shall not apply to a corporation that is not a small or medium enterprise, such as the Plaintiff. However, considering the trust in the above tax credit system or the above large amount of personnel expenses, the Plaintiff would have spent such large amount of personnel expenses.

In addition, during the business year 2011, the Plaintiff completed the application for deduction of the key tax amount of this case at the time of filing a corporate tax return. However, as the loss occurred in the business year 2011, the key tax amount of this case was not deducted until the business year 2014 as the Plaintiff did not receive the key tax, and the Plaintiff seems to have been able to receive the tax credit on the key tax amount of this case for which the disbursement was already completed at the time of filing a corporate tax return in the business year 2011 and the application for deduction was completed, while

Provisions of tax law that provide for a new tax liability or tax liability more aggravated than the previous one for the people of the Republic of Korea can be applied only when the requirements for taxation are met or met after its enforcement. The State's taxation authority cannot take any unfavorable measure than the legal effect that can have been anticipated by the provisions of tax law at the time of the act of realizing the requirements for taxation by the people who are liable for tax payment. This is the same in the previous case where the provisions of tax reduction and exemption, which are not subject to the minimum tax, are subject to the minimum tax, due to the amendment of the law, and the increase

㉣ 그런데, 이 사건 쟁점세액과 관련한 석ㆍ박사 인건비 지출 당시 시행 중이던 구 조세특례제한법에 의할 경우 최저한세 적용 대상이 아니던 위 쟁점세액에 대하여 개정 조세특례제한법에 따라 최저한세가 적용된다고 보는 것은 위와 같은 원고의 신뢰 및 예측을 벗어나 과거에 이미 지출이 완료된 비용과 관련한 세부담을 증가시키는 결과를 초래하게 된다.

③ In addition, Article 132(1)3 of the revised Restriction of Special Taxation Act included the amount of tax credit for research and human resources development expenses equivalent to human resources for large enterprises, like the Act prior to the enforcement of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, as well as the Act prior to the enforcement of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, in order to apply the minimum tax to the amount of tax credit for research and human resources development expenses of large enterprises incurred after the enforcement of the amended Restriction of Special Taxation Act, taking into account the fact that research and human resources development are fully supported by tax support for research and human resources development and taxation equality with other tax credits. However, deeming that the minimum tax is applied under the amended Restriction of Special Taxation Act even to the portion of the expenditure already made up for the promotion of research and

④ Furthermore, Article 144(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (the same applies to both the former Restriction of Special Taxation and the amended Restriction of Special Taxation Act) provides that "the amount equivalent to the portion of the tax amount to be deducted under Article 10, which has no tax amount to be paid in the pertinent taxable year, or which has not been deducted under Article 132, shall be carried over to each taxable year ending within five years from the commencing date of the taxable year following the pertinent taxable year and deducted from the corporate tax for each taxable year carried forward," and Article 144(2) provides that "where the tax amount to be deducted under Article 10 and the non-deductible amount carried over under paragraph (1) overlap, the deduction shall be made first, and where there overlap between the non-deductible amount carried over, the first deduction shall be made in order. In addition, even if the corporate tax return is filed, it shall be divided into the non-deductible amount carried over under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and the new amount of the non-deductible amount carried over during the pertinent business year, and it shall be reported separately from the amount of the previous tax exemption amount carried over.

⑤ The Defendant asserts that, in the Supreme Court Decision 2007Du7727 Decided June 11, 2009, the issue of whether the carried-over tax amount carried-over to the taxable year beginning after the enforcement of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is corporate tax for the pertinent taxable year, and that, under Article 2(1) of the former Addenda of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the application of Article 132(1)3 of the amended Restriction of Special Taxation Act to the tax amount at issue of this case is subject to the minimum tax and it is subject to the restriction of the minimum tax under Article 132(1)3 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act. However, in this case, the issue of this case, which was originally subject to the minimum tax under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, is whether the tax amount at issue is subject to the minimum tax under the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act which was enforced prior to the enforcement of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7030, Dec. 30, 2003).

3. Conclusion

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