법인세부과처분취소
1. The Defendant imposed corporate tax of KRW 56,932,108 on the Plaintiff on September 10, 2010, which was imposed by the Plaintiff at KRW 35,869.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established with the main purpose of providing finance necessary for external economic cooperation, such as export and import, overseas investment, and overseas resources development.
B. 1) The Plaintiff: (1) The Korea Trade Insurance Corporation (the Korea Export Insurance Corporation prior to the change: hereinafter “Insurance Corporation”).
) Insurance money received from export insurance under the terms and conditions of export insurance (hereinafter “instant insurance money”).
(2) The Korea Insurance Corporation, the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund, or the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund referred to in the Guarantee Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “Insurance Corporation, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund, etc.”) and the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund, etc., paid to the Plaintiff by the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, etc.
(3) After filing a request for correction in relation to paid-in foreign tax amount, the Plaintiff received 40,922,252,252 and 12,053,374 and 29,64,865 of the corporate tax for the business year 2007, as corporate tax for the business year 65,99,457,922, and corporate tax for the business year 2007, and 146,312,919,366, respectively.2) After filing a request for correction in relation to paid-in foreign tax amount for the business year 2006, the Plaintiff received 40,922,252,252, and 12,053,374, and 29,64,865 of corporate tax for the business year 207.
C. As a result of the consolidated investigation of corporate tax against the Plaintiff from June 21, 2010 to August 27, 2010, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office held that, even though the Plaintiff did not have agreed on the order of appropriation, he/she omitted the interest income that could have been additionally accrued if he/she accounts as a result of collecting the principal at his/her own discretion in violation of Article 56 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, and that he/she omitted the interest income that could have been additionally accrued when he/she accounts as a result of collecting the principal from the first place in violation of Article 56 of