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

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation operating a credit card business from 2003 to 2008, entered into a contract with multiple entrusted companies such as BBCC (hereinafter referred to as the “trustees of this case”), which have been divided into the former AA card and BB card, to enable systematic member management by combining them with each other in the center of customer 1 products, and to make it possible to link them with other affiliates in the AA financial group, such as banks, insurance, and securities, and paid 000 won (hereinafter referred to as the “research and development costs of this case”) as research and development expenses. However, the Plaintiff did not apply 08 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9272, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the “former Restriction of Special Taxation Act”) to the trustee companies of this case.

C. After that, on January 4, 2010, the Plaintiff applied the deduction of the amount of research and human resources development expenses for the instant research and development expenses to the deductible tax amount to add the corporate tax amount of KRW 000 to the deductible tax reduction and exemption amount for the business year 2008 (hereinafter “the first request for correction”).

D. On February 19, 2010, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that the instant trustee was not eligible for the tax credit under Article 10 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act because of the instant trustee’s re-entrusted expenses; and (b) on the ground that only KRW 000,000, the corporate tax for the business year 2008, reverted to a third party, was refunded by adding the same amount to the tax credit amount; and (c) rejected the Plaintiff’s request for correction for the remainder 00,000 won (hereinafter “the first rejection disposition”).

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for judgment on September 14, 2010 after filing an objection, and on June 22, 2012, the Tax Tribunal re-entrusted expenses to a research institute or a department in exclusive charge of research and human resources development expenses to another company on the grounds that "it is reasonable to recognize research and human resources development expenses as a mistake subject to the tax credit on research and human resources development expenses", and on February 25, 2010, when the 1l Defendant provided the Plaintiff on February 25, 2008, the disposition of rejecting a request for rectification of corporate tax 000 won belonging to the business year 2008, which the instant trustee entrusted with research and development services of the computer system from the Plaintiff, re-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-t.

F. On June 25, 2012, the Plaintiff received a written decision on the said judgment.

G. Around July 2012, the Defendant recognized the tax credit for the research and development expenses re-entrusted to an enterprise having a dedicated department, and additionally refunded KRW 000 to the corporate tax for the business year 2009.

H. On September 20, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the initial rejection disposition with the court 2012Guhap316700, supra, as to the remaining KRW 000,000, deducting the initial amount of refund from the initial amount of correction claim amount of KRW 000,000 from the additional amount of refund claim.

I. On the other hand, in the case of corporate tax attributed to the business year 2008, the plaintiff had no longer the tax amount to be refunded due to the application of the minimum tax amount provision, and on September 24, 2012, the plaintiff filed a request for correction to refund KRW 000 to the corporate tax attributed to the business year 2009 (hereinafter "the request for correction of this case") and the defendant rejected the plaintiff's request for correction on September 28, 2012 (hereinafter "the disposition of refusal").

(j) On October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff received notification of the result of the instant refusal disposition, and on October 15, 2012

The instant lawsuit was filed without going through the pre-trial procedure.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Gap evidence 5 1 and 2, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7 1, and Eul evidence 7 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. First, the defendant asserts that the lawsuit filed against the plaintiff as 2012Guhap31670 was unlawful since the lawsuit and its substance were filed in a uniform lawsuit against the plaintiff, and that the lawsuit in this case violated the principle of prohibition against reproduction, and that the refusal of September 28, 2012 is not a violation of the plaintiff's rights or interests, but a simple notification of facts, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a disposition subject to appeal. The purport of the claim in this case of 2012Guhap31670 of the court against the defendant was that "the defendant's rejection of claim against the plaintiff on February 19, 2010" is that "the defendant's rejection of claim against the plaintiff for correction of 200 won corporate tax for the business year 209, which belongs to the plaintiff on December 28, 2012, and it cannot be viewed that the defendant's request for correction of the above 2009 Korean corporate tax belongs to 2009 Korean corporate tax, and that the plaintiff's request for correction of this case belongs to 20009 Korean won.

B. Next, the defendant asserts that the lawsuit in this case is unlawful because it did not go through the previous trial procedure, and the tax authorities and the National Tax Tribunal provided an opportunity to re-determine the basic facts and legal issues, and the taxpayer seems to be harsh to go through the previous trial procedure, etc., the taxpayer may file an administrative lawsuit claiming the revocation of the tax disposition even without going through the previous trial procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du13436, Jan. 27, 201). Since the part seeking refund in the request in this case is the remaining part being refunded through the initial refusal disposition and ex officio revocation in accordance with the decision of the Tax Tribunal, the object of the initial request for correction in this case is substantially identical, and the plaintiff and the National Tax Tribunal provided an opportunity to re-determine the original request for correction, and according to this, the defendant and the Tax Tribunal were provided an opportunity to re-examine the basic facts and legal issues in this case, and even if they did not go through the previous trial procedure, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff did not go through the previous trial procedure in this case.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff

If research and development services are entrusted to an enterprise holding a department exclusively in charge of research and development, regardless of whether it has a department exclusively in charge of re-entrusted and re-entrusted enterprises, and expenses incurred in entrustment shall be subject to tax credit under Article 10 (1)

(2) Defendant

(A) First of all, it was not revealed whether the costs incurred in the consignment of research and development services alleged by the Plaintiff were used for research and development activities. Furthermore, in order to constitute an interpretation of Article 9(5) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, ‘newness' and ‘regradity’ are recognized, which are the requirements for patent, should not be deemed to have satisfied these requirements.

(B) Next, the Restriction of Special Taxation Act separates the entrustment and re-entrustment. In light of the following, Article 10(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act applicable to this case, Article 9(2) [Attachment 6] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21307 of Feb. 4, 2009, hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act") does not provide that "re-entrustment" is only a "entrustment" subject to tax credit, and it does not include "re-entrustment" only under subparagraph 1(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act [Attachment Table 6] of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590 of Feb. 2, 2012). Furthermore, research and development expenses are subject to tax credit. Furthermore, in the case of research and development, even if working in the exclusively responsible department, the payment for labor expenses is not subject to tax credit, at least 201Nu2535.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether research and development constitutes "research and development"

Article 9(5) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "l research and development" means activities to achieve scientific or technical progress and to develop new service and service delivery system. As seen in the above disposition circumstances, it is not difficult to regard the service entrusted by the Plaintiff as research and development since it is built of a systematic and comprehensive system to enhance the present situation of large financial business, enhance the core business and service competitiveness, and achieve the optimal and efficient operation of information and communications technology, and it is difficult to regard it as research and development. Meanwhile, although the term "strel or new" is included in the above provision, it does not mean that research and development is for acquiring a patent, and it does not mean that research and development is not for acquiring a patent, and it should not be interpreted that it should be equipped with "newness" and "strelability, which are the requirements for a patent, for purposes

(2) Whether it is not subject to tax credit if re-entrusted

In addition to the above language and text, it is reasonable to interpret tax laws and regulations in accordance with the principle of no taxation without law, and to interpret them extensively or analogically without reasonable grounds (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6781, May 27, 2004), and Article 9(2) [Attachment 6] 1(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act only provides for tax credit for expenses incurred in the "entrustment of technology development services to a domestic or foreign research institute or a dedicated department," and there is no provision that there is no difference between the truster's tax credit for the dedicated department and the dedicated department of the dedicated department. In particular, it is difficult to see that the dedicated department's dedicated department's dedicated department's dedicated department's dedicated department's dedicated department's dedicated department's dedicated department's dedicated research and development is clearly included in tax credit since it is inevitable to interpret the 10th and 20th of the dedicated department's dedicated department's dedicated research and development.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the instant disposition that the instant trustee did not receive a tax credit for research and human resources development expenses under Article 10 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

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