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

A. The plaintiff is a company engaged in the manufacture and sales business of mid-term machine (a machine manufacturing empty objects, such as air form and concurrent imposition). On July 11, 2002, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the XX industry (hereinafter referred to as the "P industry"), the contract period from July 11, 2002 to June 30, 2004, the plaintiff's technology to be transferred from the above company's design and production (including delivery of each assembly level and parts), the contract amount and payment method into 30,000,000 won until August 30, 2002, 200, 2000, 2000,000,000,000 won for the technical transfer (hereinafter referred to as the "technology transfer contract of this case"), and paid 00,000,000 won for the 20,000,000 won for the technical transfer contract of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "technology transfer contract of this case").

C. On August 16, 2009, the head of Seocheon District Tax Office issued a tax invoice issued by an O plant shall not include KRW 60,00,000 in deductible expenses for the Plaintiff on August 16, 2009, notified the Plaintiff of correction and notification of KRW 29,843,490 in corporate tax for the business year 2002. The value of supply plus value of KRW 66,00,000,000 in deductible expenses for the Plaintiff’s representative as bonus for the Plaintiff’s income (hereinafter “the previous disposition”).

D. As to this, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant on November 3, 2009. On December 3, 2009, the Defendant partly accepted the Plaintiff’s application by excluding 30,000,000 won paid in the year 2002 from the bonus disposition. On March 5, 2010, the Plaintiff again filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 28, 2011, the Tax Tribunal partially accepted the Plaintiff’s claim as it excludes KRW 10,00,000 paid in the service cost of this case from the bonus disposition as it was excluded from the representative bonus disposition (the remaining part of the previous disposition of this case, which was partially revoked as seen above, does not include the supply value of KRW 60,00,00 in deductible expenses under the tax invoice, and thus does not include the amount of KRW 29,843,490, supra.).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the design drawing of 30,000,000 won should be included in the calculation of losses in the business year 2002 as follows, and that part of the disposition in this case should be revoked as much as the amount corresponding to that amount.

(1) The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff entered into a separate contract for the compact disc work with a design drawing and the compact disc work, but prepared a single contract for convenience. Accordingly, on September 2, 2002, 200, 30,000 won will be paid for the LP industry with a design drawing of 838, as well as 30,000 won will be paid for them. On April 16, 2003, the Plaintiff paid 10,000 won for them to XX industry on the 28th day of the same month. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s design drawing of the XX industry should be included in deductible expenses in deductible expenses as of September 2, 2002.

(2) Even if there is no special technology transfer, the Plaintiff had sufficient technology to manufacture machinery in accordance with the design drawing. As such, the instant technology transfer contract is a transfer contract for the design drawing in fact, applying Article 68(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act to this regard, deeming the 2002-year period which belongs to the delivery date of the design drawing as the time of reversion of losses and shall be included in the calculation of losses.

(3) Even in cases where the instant technology transfer contract is deemed as a single service contract, since the contract period was agreed at least one year at the time of concluding the instant technology transfer contract, the time when the total expected cost was reverted to KRW 30,000,000, out of KRW 40,000 pursuant to Article 69(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 34(2)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act shall be included in the calculation of losses.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

(1) Determination on the assertion 1 and 2

"Technology transfer contract of this case" provides that "the content of technology transfer contract of this case shall be 30,00,000 won until August 30, 2002, the contract amount and payment method shall be 30,000,000 won until August 30, 2002, and 10,000 won after the two-lane payment six months after the two-lane payment shall be as mentioned above. This is as follows: (a) the ownership of "Multier Bair Baach" technology developed in Article 4 of the Technology Transfer Contract (Evidence 5) is specified in the plaintiff; (b) according to the Fax 20 delivered with the plaintiff (Evidence 6) 0,00,000 won, the contract amount and payment method shall be 0,000 won until August 30, 2002, and the plaintiff's claim that the L industry shall be 00,000 won for the purpose of the contract transfer contract of this case shall not be considered as 30,0,0,0,030,0,0,034, respectively, 20.

Article 69 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18706, Feb. 19, 2005; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that with respect to the business year in which profits and losses accrue from the provision of services, the business year in which earnings and losses accrue due to the provision of construction, manufacturing, and other services (including contract and subscription sales; hereafter referred to as "construction" in this Article) refers to the business year which includes the date of delivery (in case of the provision of services, the date of the completion of the provision) (in case of the provision of services), and the contract period (in case of construction from the commencement date of construction to the date of delivery) is not less than one year, the earnings and losses for each business year from the business year which includes the date of the commencement of construction of the assets to the business year which includes the date of delivery of the assets shall be included in the calculation of earnings and losses for the relevant business year, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1).

We examine whether the technology transfer contract of this case constitutes "a case where the construction contract period is not less than one year" as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 69 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. According to the above provision, the contract period of construction, etc. refers to the period from the commencement date of construction, etc. to the delivery date, and in this case, even if the date of commencement of service is July 11, 2002, which is the date of conclusion of the technology transfer contract of this case, the date of completion of service provision is March 3, 2003, and thus, it does not constitute "a case where the construction contract period is not less than one year."

(Decree) Even if it is assumed that the technology transfer contract of this case constitutes "the case where the construction contract of this case is not less than one year", the plaintiff does not enter the expenses actually paid under the technology transfer contract of this case in the account book, so the plaintiff falls under the proviso of Article 69 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 34 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act "the case where it is deemed that the rate of work progress cannot be calculated" and thus the business year in which losses under the technology transfer contract

Therefore, the business year of accrual of deductible expenses under the technology transfer contract of this case is 2003 years from the date on which the provision of services is completed pursuant to Article 69(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part

3. Conclusion

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