March 11, 2016

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-fifth of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant, and the remainder by the Plaintiff, respectively.

On November 1, 2013, the Defendant’s imposition disposition of each of the value-added tax and corporate tax stated in the separate sheet of “instant disposition details” shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiff, established on May 12, 1998, operated the business of building and providing sales slips and collecting and keeping sales slips (hereinafter “instant business”) in order to deliver information on settlement of credit cards, cash receipts, etc. (credit card companies, cash receipts, etc.) to the credit card companies or the National Tax Service to deal with affairs such as credit card inquiries, payment approval, and settlement of payments, etc.

B. From August 200 to September 2012, Nonparty 1, while working as the director of the Plaintiff’s corporate business division and the managing director, etc., Nonparty 2, from July 2001 to March 201, took charge of franchise store business, agency management, and settlement affairs, etc., while working as the representative and team leader of the Plaintiff’s corporate business group from July 2001 to March 201. They were 30,000, 30,00,000, 30,000, 30,000, 20,000, 30,000, 30,000, 2,000, 2,000, 2,000, 2,000, 2,000, 2,000, 2,000, 2,000, 2,000, 30,000,000 won and 3,00.

C. On November 1, 2013, the Defendant excluded the depreciation costs of KRW 8,317,145,00 (hereinafter “the depreciation costs of this case”) from deductible expenses on the ground that the purchase tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff from the other party (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”) is a false tax invoice, and deducted the relevant input tax amount on the grounds that it is a false tax invoice; ② in calculating corporate tax for each pertinent business year, the amount of the instant tax shall be excluded from deductible expenses; ③ inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s business operated by the Plaintiff is a communications business, the Plaintiff’s mechanical equipment and the rental terminal shall be subject to the standard service life of eight years, not less than four years; and subsequently, notified the Plaintiff of the disposition of imposition of value-added tax and the corporate tax indicated in attached Table 1 “the instant disposition” (hereinafter “instant disposition of imposition of value-added tax”); and each disposition of imposition of corporate tax shall be referred to as “instant corporate tax”; and each of the above dispositions shall be referred to as

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Related statutes;

Attached Table 3 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. As to the exclusion period of imposition

1) Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter “former Framework Act on National Taxes”) provides that “where a taxpayer evades any national tax, obtains a refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful means, for ten years from the date on which the national tax can be imposed,” the exclusion period for imposition of national tax shall be set as national tax. Article 26-2(1)3 of the same Act provides that “The exclusion period for imposition of general exclusion period that does not fall under any of the above subparagraphs

2) Regarding the imposition of each value-added tax for the first period from 2005 to 2008

A) In a case where a taxpayer prepared a false contract and received deduction or refund of an input tax amount through a false tax invoice received accordingly, the period of exclusion for 10 years under Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes should be recognized to apply to such act. In addition to recognizing that the taxpayer is entitled to deduction or refund of an input tax amount by a false tax invoice, there should be awareness that the taxpayer would result in a taxpayer’s deduction of an input tax amount as a result of the reduction of the national tax revenue by evading the taxpayer’s liability to pay the value-added tax by either filing a return or payment of the tax base and tax amount of value-added tax, excluding the output tax on the tax invoice, or filing a request for correction after filing a tax return or payment in whole on the tax invoice (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du19516, Feb. 27, 2014).

B) It is difficult to view that the transaction partner (hereinafter “Transaction”) who issued a false tax invoice to the Plaintiff on the sole basis of the statement of evidence Nos. 6 is having declared and paid the tax base and the amount of the value-added tax except for the amount of the output tax on the said tax invoice. Rather, according to each statement of evidence Nos. 7 through 9, the head of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Tax Office adjusted the reduction of the value-added tax for the purpose of refund on the grounds of the return and payment of the value-added tax based on the processed data on the diesel on or around November 27, 2014, after the instant disposition, and the head of the Samsung District Tax Office imposed the penalty tax on the grounds that the content of the return and payment of the value-added tax on the said low-doping was processed data. In light of this, it is difficult to view that the transaction partner filed a false tax invoice and paid the value-added tax ex officio, deeming that the transaction partner received a request for correction on his/her own on the ground that the value-added tax was corrected.

In addition, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff remitted the amount calculated by adding value-added tax to the amount supplied according to each false tax invoice to the account in the name of the transaction partner, and the actual offender acquired only the amount equivalent to the amount supplied. In other words, the Plaintiff paid value-added tax to the transaction partner for the return and payment of the amount of output tax as to

C) In light of the above circumstances, since the Plaintiff believed that the transaction partner would return and pay the value-added tax and paid the amount to the transaction partner, it cannot be deemed that there was a perception that the Plaintiff would result in the reduction of the State’s tax revenue as a result of receiving the input tax deduction. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion on this point is with merit, the Plaintiff’s imposition of value-added tax for the first period to the first period to the year 2005, which was imposed after the lapse of five-year exclusion period from imposition of value-added tax, is unlawful.

3) Regarding the imposition of each corporate tax for the year 2005 to 2007

A) The contents and legislative purport of Article 26-2(1)1 and 3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes include not only the unlawful act committed by the taxpayer himself/herself but also the unlawful act committed by the taxpayer, such as the taxpayer’s agent, performance assistant, etc., who gains the expansion of the scope of the scope of the imposition of national taxes, in principle, in cases where the exclusion period of the imposition of national taxes is five years in order to promptly determine tax-related relations, but it is difficult for the tax authority to discover the existence of any unlawful act, such as making it difficult for the taxpayer to exercise the imposition right because it is difficult for him/her to find that it is an omission report, and thus, it is difficult for the tax authority to expect the exercise of the imposition right.

B) As seen earlier, the act of receiving a false tax invoice by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “actual actors”) constitutes an unlawful act under Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, and the said act was committed in the course of performing the duties as an employee of the Plaintiff, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem the said provision as a taxpayer when applying the said provision.

C) As to this, in the relevant criminal judgment, the Plaintiff alleged to the effect that it was harsh to evaluate the Plaintiff’s act as the Plaintiff’s act, but the Plaintiff’s act is merely a matter between the Plaintiff and the actual actors, and it cannot be deemed that the effect of the business process performed by the actual agent on behalf of the Plaintiff does not extend to the Plaintiff.

B. Whether the depreciation costs of this case are included in the deductible expenses

1) Article 23(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010) provides that depreciation costs of fixed assets shall be included in deductible expenses in calculating the income amount for the concerned business year within the scope of the amount calculated as prescribed by Presidential Decree only where a domestic corporation appropriates such depreciation costs as deductible expenses for each business year (hereafter in this Article “the scope of the scope of the scope of the depreciation amount”), and the portion in excess of the scope of the appropriated scope shall not be included in deductible expenses. Article 28(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22577, Dec. 30, 2010) provides that in relation to the lifespan and depreciation rate of depreciable assets, the standard lifespan prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance (hereinafter “standard lifespan”) by 25/100 of the standard lifespan and the scope of the lifespan reported within the scope of the lifespan prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance (hereinafter “the scope of lifespan”) shall be determined within the scope of the lifespan reported within 5 years”.

2) The Korea Standard Industrial Classification (Korea Standard Industrial Classification Notice No. 2007-53, Dec. 28, 2007; hereinafter “Korea Standard Industrial Classification”) provides that “the industrial activities of the production unit are determined according to the type of the main industrial activities (goods and services sold or provided) conducted by the production unit.” The communications business defines “the telecommunications business” as “the telecommunications business that delivers non-ud voice transmission elements by means of general public or other communications facilities by electrical or electronic method for other business entities.” The term “information service business” defines as “the business of providing data processing and database, web and server hostinging Internet information services and other methods of providing information,” “the business of providing information processing and electronic data” as “the business of providing information processing and electronic data, including automatic data processing and electronic data,” “the business of providing information processing and electronic data, including 200-1, 200-1, 200-1, 200-7,” and “the business of providing information processing and electronic data,” not the key data processing business of the Korea Standard Industrial Classification (Korea).

3) The main business of the communications business is to serve the elements of non-recording transmission, etc. in which the users intend to deliver each other by providing communications facilities to subscribers, etc., and the main business of the information service business is to provide the information to the business operators. In light of the following circumstances that can be seen by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each of the aforementioned facts and evidence, evidence and evidence, evidence Nos. 3 through 8, and evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and 10, and the information processing and other business related to computer operation under the Korea Standard Industrial Classification, and the classification structure and structure of “communication business” and “information service business” or “information service business,” and the characteristics of the broadband service, it is reasonable to deem the instant business constituted “communication business”

① 원고는 회사 홈페이지에 ‘전산시스템 및 네트웍을 구축하여 전자결제서비스를 제공하는 회사’라고 회사 소개를 하였고, 사업보고서에서도 이 사건 사업을 ‘부가통신사업’으로 지칭하였다. 구 한국표준산업분류상 ‘부가통신업(64292)’은 ‘컴퓨터에 의하여 데이터베이스 및 기타 정보를 검색 및 송수신할 수 있는 온라인 통신 및 검색망을 운영하는 산업활동으로서 ’통신업(64)‘에 포함된다.

② BanB services are services for building and providing networks and collecting and keeping sales slips so that a credit card company or the National Tax Service may handle affairs, such as credit card inquiries, settlement approval, and settlement of accounts by delivering credit card or cash receipt information of a franchise store to a credit card company or the National Tax Service. The Plaintiff provides services for a franchise store to make customers obtain approval of a credit card company, etc. by providing terminal and network to a franchise store after concluding a terminal supply contract or a service use relay contract with a credit card company. During that process, the customer’s credit card information intended to request credit card approval is transmitted to a credit card company, and the credit card company’s credit card approval information is delivered from a credit card company to a credit card company. However, this appears to be a means for a credit card transaction history. Article 2(3) of the “Agreement on Transmission of Approval for Transaction” that the Plaintiff concluded with a non-credit card company (hereinafter “non-credit card company”) to transmit information to the non-credit card company to the same non-credit card company and to the effect that the Plaintiff made notification or approval of a non-credit card company’s.

③ Even if the Plaintiff performed the role of increasing the speed and accuracy of the transaction of credit cards by providing information on bad credit card dealers in order to prevent forgery or card accidents, the Plaintiff’s information on bad credit card dealers was provided by individual credit card companies. Thus, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff is engaged in the business of independently collecting, accumulating, processing, processing, and providing information, and there is no other objective data to recognize otherwise. There is no ground to view that the Plaintiff’s information processing and other business related to computer operation as the main inputs for service production is the information processing and other business related to computer operation under the Korean Standard Industrial Classification.

④ depending on the type of information provided at the time of transaction, such as credit card transaction and credit transaction, physical transaction, and safe transaction, the amount of relay fees for approval of transaction vary depending on the type of information provided at the time of transaction. In light of the fact that the size of the unit price for approval of transaction and the safety level of transaction are affected, and that the unit price for approval of transaction is lower, it is difficult to deem that there is a difference in the amount depending on the amount of information processing, etc. performed by

⑤ Even if the Plaintiff is engaged in the business of soliciting credit card merchants, installing and managing credit card terminals, approving credit card transactions, and collecting and keeping credit card slips under a credit card company’s delegation contract, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff engaged in the overall business of credit card companies, including issuing and providing credit cards, as an agent. Thus, the instant business cannot be deemed to constitute “financial and insurance business,” which is an activity of credit card companies.

6) As a result of the Plaintiff’s inquiry about the classification of industrial activities of the instant business, it is true that the Statistics Korea replys that “computer system integration consultation and construction service business (62021)”, hosting and related service business (63112) may be classified according to its main activities. However, in the case of inquiries about “in the above reply,” the main activities of the company cannot be grasped because information necessary to grasp the main economic activities conducted by the business entity is insufficient. However, in light of the fact that the Statistics Korea included the contents of “ ........” unlike the response given by the Statistics Korea, it did not deem that the response to the Plaintiff’s reply is a clear expression of opinion by the Statistics Korea regarding the instant business.

7) According to the statements in Gap evidence 7 and 8, it may be recognized that the plaintiff entered into a terminal supply contract with the chain store for a period of 60 months, or a service contract for a period of 3 years. However, the above contract period cannot be immediately deemed to fall under the lifespan of the terminal. In order to prevent inclusion of the virtual cost for each business in accordance with convenience, it shall be applied unless there are circumstances to deem that the criteria in the attached Table 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, which sets forth the scope of the lifespan, are too unreasonable and invalid, considering the overall characteristics of individual industrial activities in order to prevent the inclusion of the virtual cost by each business.

4) Therefore, the disposition imposing the corporate tax of this case, which applied the standard eight-year service life to the Plaintiff’s machinery, equipment, and rental terminal on the premise that the instant business constitutes a communications business, cannot be deemed unlawful. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant business constitutes an information service business [the “information processing and other computer operation-related business” under the Korea Standard Industrial Classification (Notice No. 2000-1 of January 7, 200)] or a financial and insurance business cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as there is no ground.

(attached Form omitted)

Judges Kim Jong-hwan (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-young