There is no dispute between the parties as to the following circumstances of the instant disposition.

A. On March 12, 1993, the date of settlement of accounts for the business year 192 (from January 1, 1992 to December 31, 1993), the Plaintiff, a corporation subject to external accounting audit, calculated the amount of 187,248,38 won to be accumulated as income and tax credit, and accumulated the amount of 200,000,000 won as the reserve for corporate rationalization at the time of disposing profits for the same business year on the same day.

나. 위 결산확정일 이후 ㅇㅇ회계법인으로부터 외부세무조정을 받은 결과 증자소득공제액이 금234,147,370원이고 세액공제액이 금372,628,956원으로 그 공제세액에 상당하는 금452,239,062원(금234,147,370원 34/100 + 금372,628,956원)을 기업합리화적립금으로 적립하여야 하게 되었다.

C. However, as the Plaintiff did not accumulate KRW 252,239,062, which is a shortage of the reserve for corporate rationalization to be accumulated in March 11, 1994, which is the time of disposal of profits for the following business year (193 business year), the Defendant excluded the income and tax credit for the shortage reserve amount, and imposed and notified additional tax amounting to KRW 252,239,062, which added KRW 47,723,630, and KRW 299,962,69,690, which is added to the amount of corporate tax corresponding to the shortage reserve on July 16, 1994 (the Plaintiff appears to be a clerical error on July 6, 1994, which is written by the date of the instant taxation disposition).

2. Whether the instant taxation disposition is lawful

A. The allegations of the parties

The Defendant asserted that the instant taxation disposition is legitimate and reasonable in light of the details of the instant taxation disposition and related Acts and subordinate statutes. As to this, the Plaintiff failed to accumulate the shortage of the above reserves in the following business year due to the mistake of the employee in charge, but the notice was issued on June 15, 1994, which was within the deadline for filing a revised tax return of the corporate tax for the business year 1993, and the provisional general meeting of shareholders was set aside on July 16, 1994 in lieu of the existing voluntary reserve at the temporary general meeting of shareholders, and the revised tax return was filed on July 16, 1994 during the revised tax return period, and the instant tax disposition was unlawful. Second, even if the instant tax disposition was not so, the Plaintiff did not set aside the amount of 14,922, 329, 427 won as the facility investment reserve and voluntary reserve, and did not go beyond the scope of the revised tax return and did not go beyond the deadline for filing the revised tax return.

B. Provisions of the statute

Article 91 (1) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4521 of Dec. 8, 1992; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall set aside an amount equivalent to the deducted tax amount (in case of income deduction, an amount equivalent to the corporate tax on the deducted income amount) in the disposal of profits for the pertinent business year, a domestic corporation subject to the tax credit, tax reduction and exemption, or income deduction under the provisions of Articles 17, 18, 5, 71, 72, and 72-2 of the Act shall set aside an amount equivalent to the deducted tax amount in the disposal of profits for the pertinent business year. Paragraph (2) of the same Article shall not apply to cases where a person who is obliged to set aside an enterprise rationalization reserve fund under the provisions of paragraph (1) fails to do so: Provided, That this shall not apply to cases as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. It refers to cases where it receives it and then sets aside an amount equivalent to the increase in corporate tax reduction and exemption under the provisions of paragraph (1) of Article 65 (2) of the Act for the following business year.

In light of the legislative intent of the above Act and the Enforcement Decree, where the reserve for corporate rationalization increases due to the tax adjustment after the closing date, income and tax credit shall apply only to the case where the amount equivalent to the shortage of the reserve for corporate rationalization is accumulated as the reserve for corporate rationalization in the next business year. In this case, in the case of this case, 252,239,062 won, which is the increased amount of the reserve for corporate rationalization increased due to the tax adjustment after the closing date of the business year 1992 ( March 12, 1993), shall not be accumulated in March 11, 1994, which is the time of disposal of profits of the next business year (193 business year), which is the time of the next business year (193 business year), and the revised return was made by the plaintiff as the person who has been subject to the revised return (the revised return on corporate rationalization for the business year 192 year, is the date of the report on the revised return on the change of income and investment of this case).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation because the taxation disposition of this case was unlawful, is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff as the losing party.

October 27, 1995