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

(1) On July 15, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) performed the first 893-1 land and the building on the ground of 10 OB, and (b) accepted the land, obstacles, etc. of the CE industry company; and (c) on February 5, 2009, the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff KRW 100 to the 20-O2000 won of the 1st OB’s 2000 won of the 1st OB’s 7th OB ; (b) the 2000 won of the 1st OB 206 O’s 4th O’s 206 O’s 206 O’s 200 won of the 204 O’s 201 O’s 2000 won of the 206 O’s 209 O’s 2000 won of the 201 O’s O’s total revenue.

(6) On June 29, 2012, during the first instance trial proceeding, the Plaintiff recognized OOOOO as capital expenditure, and reduced the claim on the portion corresponding to the amount of tax. The Defendant recognized OOOOOO as beneficial expenditure according to the purport of the first instance court’s recommendation on November 8, 2012, and notified the Plaintiff of the amount of tax corrected and notified as of April 20, 201, after again reducing the amount of tax equivalent to the above OOOOOO won from the amount of tax reduced to the above OOOOO won on April 20, 209 (hereinafter the initial disposition of this case, which was corrected as of November 8, 2012); the Defendant stated the amount of tax remaining after the reduction as of November 8, 2012 in the initial disposition of this case; the purport that the disposition of this case is without dispute; the purport that the disposition of this case is imposed on the Plaintiff; the purport that the Plaintiff did not include evidence No. 1381, evidence No.10.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

"The plaintiff, around the other hand, ① items 1, 2, and 3 of the attached Table 1, namely, the motor vehicle inspection facilities, the color heat processing facilities, and the scopic facilities (hereinafter referred to as the "each of the facilities of this case") shall be implemented under the lower part to install the facilities. Since the lower parts of each of the facilities of this case installed through the civil engineering works are subject to the payment of compensation for alternative acquisition not to moveable facilities, the "expenses for the plaintiff's assertion in the attached Table 1" should be excluded from the total amount of income, and ② The "expenses for the plaintiff's assertion in the attached Table 1" should be excluded from the total amount of expenses, and the "expenses for the plaintiff's assertion in the attached Table 1" should be deducted from the necessary expenses because it constitutes the amount used to restore original properties by transferring each of the facilities listed in

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

(1) As to the Plaintiff’s assertion

(A) Article 51 (3) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "where a business owner receives compensation for machinery transfer installed in a housing site development project zone, etc. as a result of incorporation of the site into a housing site development project zone, the amount of income accrued or to be reverted to the relevant business operator, which is related to the business other than subparagraphs 1, 1-2, 1-3, 2 through 4 and 4-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, shall be included in the total amount of income." The compensation for machinery transfer is paid to the business operator to continue his/her business after moving the machinery of the old factory into a new factory to a new factory, and therefore, it shall be included in the total amount of income of the business operator even if the business operator receives the compensation for machinery transfer in order to relocate the machinery (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du4313, Jun. 9, 200)." Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff's expenses for civil construction works in order to move each of the facilities of this case can be deducted from capital or necessary expenses.

(B) In light of the fact that "the Plaintiff asserts that the substitute acquisition compensation for the facilities that cannot be transferred among the compensation for relocation of the workplace facilities under the second sentence of Article 24-51-7 of the Enforcement Standard of the Income Tax Act shall not be included in the total amount of income." In order to transfer each of the facilities of this case, the costs of civil construction works on the subordinate part shall be equivalent to "the amount of alternative acquisition compensation for the facilities that cannot be transferred". "The enforcement standard of the Income Tax Act is separate from the legal effect of the above, and the following circumstances recognized by Gap's statement and image as evidence Nos. 4, 9,10, 11, witness testimony and the purport of oral argument as a whole. In order to install each of the facilities of this case, in other words, in order to install the facilities of this case, the public construction works to fix the ground of each of the facilities of this case shall be implemented to the facilities of this case, and the physical structure or form of the facility of this case shall not be clearly separated from each of the facilities of this case."

(2) As to the Plaintiff’s assertion

" 소득세법 시행령 제67조 제1항은사업자가 감가상각자산을 취득하기 위하여 지출한 금액과 감가상각자산에 대한 자본적 지출에 해당하는 금액을 필요경비로 계상한 경우에는 이를 감가상각한 것으로 보아 상각범위액을 계산한다.'라고 규정하고 있고, 제2항 은제1항에서 자본적 지출이라 함은 사업자가 소유하는 감가상각자산의 내용연수를 연장시키거나 당해 자산의 가치를 현실적으로 증가시키기 위하여 지출한 수선비를 말하며, 다음 각호의 1에 규정하는 것에 대한 지출을 포함하는 것으로 한다.'라고 규정하고 있으며, 제3항은사업자가 각 과세기간에 지출한 수선비가 다음 각 호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 경우로서 당해수선비를 필요경비로 계상한 경우에는 제2항에 따른 자본적 지출에 포함되지 아니하는 것으로 한다.'고 하고 있다.", " 앞서 든 각 증거와 갑 제12호증, 을 제16호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ㉠ 별지 1 기재 항목 중 순번 4, 5, 6 부분은 이전한 사업장에 시설을 새로 설치하는 데 들어간 비용, 즉 사업자가 감가상각자산을 취득하기 위하여 지출한 금액이어서 소득세법 시행령 제67조 제1항에 해당하고, 같은 조 제3항 각호에서 규정하는 당해수선비나 일반적 의미의 수익적 지출에 해당한다고 볼 수 없는 점, ㉡ 별지 1 기재 항목 중 순번 1 부분은 그 대부분이 원고가 사업장을 이전하면서 새로 구입한 대형자동차 검사시설을 설치하는 데 들어간 비용이어서 수익적 지출에 해당한다고 할 수 없고, 원고가 종전부터 가지고 있던 소형자동차 검사시설을 이전 ・ 설치하는 과정에서 들어간 토목공사비용은 앞서 본 것처럼 위 소형자동차 검사 시설을 지반에 고정하기 위한 필요한 것으로서 위 시설의 내용연수를 연장시키거나 당해 자산의 가치를 현실적으로 증가시키기 위하여 지출한 수선비로서 자본적 지출에 해당하고 수익적 지출이라고 볼 수 없는 점, ㉢ 별지 1 기재 항목 중 순번 2, 3 부분도 원고가 사업장을 옮기면서 도색열처리시설과 세차시설을 이전 ・ 설치하는 과정에서 들어간 토목공사비용으로서 앞서 본 것처럼 이는 위 각 시설의 내용연수를 연장시키거나 당해 자산의 가치를 현실적으로 증가시키기 위하여 지출한 수선비로서 자본적 지출에 해당할 뿐, 수익적 지출이라고 볼 수 없는 점, ㉣ 한편 소득세법상의 감가상각제도는임의상각제도'를 취하여 소득자가 스스로 감가상각비를 계상한 경우에 한하여 필요경비를 인정하고 있는데, 원고가 별지 1 기재원고 주장 지출비용'을 계상하였다고 볼 증거가 전혀 없는 점, ㉤ 별지 1 기재원고 주장 지출비용'이 상당한 액수임에도 원고는 2009년도 종합소득세신고를 하면서 이에 관하여 필요경비나 감가상각비 등 그 명목 여하를 불문하고 이를 계상하지도 아니하는 등 그 비용이 실제로 지출되었다고 보기도 어려운 점 등을 종합하면, 별지 1 기재차액' 부분은 그 전부가 해당연도의 필요 경비에 산입될 수 없는 것이라고 봄이 타당하다.", 따라서 원고의 위 주장도 이유 없다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is so decided as per Disposition as the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.