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

A. In 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a service consignment agreement with BB Co., Ltd. as indicated in Table 1. The Plaintiff deducted the tax amount of KRW 000 from the service cost paid pursuant to the service consignment agreement, and reported and paid corporate tax for the business year of 2006.

(E. The omission of Entrustment Contract and Service Costs)

나. 피고는 2011. 12. 1. 원고에 대하여 "용역비 중 00000원은 수탁업체들이 제3자에게 재위탁하여 지출된비용、이므로 세액공제대상에 해당하지 않는다"는 이유로， 2006 사업연도 법인세 0000원(가산세 포함)을 경정 ・ 고지하였다.

C. On March 5, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a request for trial, and on August 13, 2012, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that “the amount of tax shall be corrected as the subject of tax contribution and the remainder of the request for trial is dismissed.”

D. On the other hand, on March 23, 2012, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff on the ground that “1,000 won not performed at a research institute or a dedicated department of the trustee company out of the service cost is not subject to tax credit,” and that corporate tax of 000 won for the business year 2006 was increased, corrected, and notified. The Plaintiff filed an appeal on June 21, 2012, and received a decision of revocation from the Tax Tribunal on September 24, 2012. The details of service cost paid to the trustee company are as follows:

(Omission of Details of Re-entrusted Service Costs)

E. The Defendant revoked 00 won on October 8, 2012, and 22.00 won on the same month, and refunded each of the said money to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Grounds for recognition] The items of Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 and evidence 2 (including natural disaster) and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff

If research and development services have been 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 business, and expenses incurred in entrustment are eligible for tax

(2) Defendant

(A) Costs for re-entrusted research and development services are not subject to tax credit.

(B) (The costs of the re-entrusted research and development services are not subject to the tax credit, even if they are subject to the tax credit) paid to the re-entrusted enterprise that does not have the exclusive department.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Regarding issues and burden of proof

Article 10 (1) 2 (b) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9272 of Dec. 26, 2008, hereinafter referred to as the "former Restriction of Special Taxation Act") and Article 9 (2) [Attachment Table 6] 1 (b) (i) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19811 of Dec. 30, 2006, hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act"), and (ii) of the expenses incurred in entrusting research and development services, etc. to a domestic or foreign research institution (limited to research in the field of science and technology) or a dedicated department of a domestic or foreign company (limited to research in the field of science and technology). In this regard, the issue is whether the entrusted company should carry out direct research and development services, and (ii) whether the entrusted company should hold a research institution or dedicated department (limited to service costs due to entrustment). Furthermore, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax disposition is, in principle for taxpayers (see Supreme Court Decision 409Du7Du74.

(2) As to the subject matter of re-entrustment

(6) Subparagraph 1 (b) of [Attachment 6] of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590, Feb. 2, 2012) provides that "the expenses for re-entrustment of research and development services, etc. to research institutes or dedicated departments outside Korea shall be included", and the provisions apply from the first taxable year beginning on January 1, 2012, and there is room to view that expenses for re-entrustment of research and development services, etc. before the application of the provisions are not subject to tax credit. However, the legislative intent of Article 10 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is to promote research and development by granting more tax credit to taxpayers (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du315, Jan. 22, 2002). (2) It is reasonable to interpret the tax credit requirement of the no taxation without the law or the tax credit requirement of the former Special Taxation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du3165, Jan. 22, 2002).).

(3) As to the tax credits held by research institutes or dedicated departments

① The National Tax Service interpreted that “the cost for the development services performed by a non-exclusive department / employee of an enterprise that has been entrusted with the development services of electronic computer system from a corporation engaging in a banking business is subject to tax credit” (2) there is no reasonable ground to deal differently with cases where a trustee company provided entrusted services by a non-exclusive department and where a trustee company provided entrusted services by a non-exclusive department to enhance efficiency of research and development services, and where a trustee company provided entrusted services by a non-exclusive department to a non-exclusive department to a non-exclusive department. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24368, Apr. 17, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 24368, Jan. 1, 2013>

(4) Sub-determination

Therefore, the plaintiff's expenses incurred in entrusting research and development services are subject to tax credit regardless of whether the plaintiff has a department exclusively in charge of re-entrustment and re-entrusted enterprises, and the disposition of

3. Conclusion

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