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

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: “The difference between the margin of engine and non-Engine parts is difficult to be deemed to be excessive at a rate of 65%, 54%, respectively.” The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the judgment under Paragraph (2) below, since Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited.

2. Additional determination

(a) Whether the calculation of income under the cost precedent is illegal or not;

In addition to the reasons indicated in the judgment of the court of first instance on this part, the judgment of the court of first instance that the Defendant’s instant disposition, which calculated income reduced or exempted pursuant to the cost reimbursement method, is justifiable is justifiable.

① The Plaintiff acquired import by selling and importing an automobile with the instant engine, and the Plaintiff’s separate transaction of the engine is essentially very limited, and the engine was actually installed in the end of three years from 2008 to 2010, only 12 engines (0, 2008, 9, 2009, 33, 2010) are merely 12 engines (0, 2008, 209, 201). The sales price of the parts of the engine for maintenance cannot be deemed as the market price formed “the time of trade under the ordinary terms and conditions of trade between independent business operators.” ② The Plaintiff asserted that the final rate of the engine and the non-Engine parts was 65%,54%, respectively, and that the difference between the engine and the Plaintiff’s end of 20 years from 20 years from 30,000 from 20,000 from 20,000 from 20,000.

B. Whether the principle of good faith is violated

In addition to the reasons indicated in the first instance judgment, the first instance judgment rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff violated the principle of good faith is justifiable.

① With respect to the case of using parts, etc. produced from a business subject to tax reduction or exemption for manufacturing final products, the National Tax Service sent a reply stating that the instant disposition and specific matters are “calculated by applying the market price when trading between independent business operators according to the ordinary terms and conditions of business.” Such reply by the National Tax Service is merely a general statement of opinion that expressed its intent on the method of calculating the income of the business subject to tax reduction or exemption, and is merely a general statement of opinion. ② In calculating the income of the business subject to tax reduction or exemption, in order to calculate the market price by applying the market price in calculating the income of the business subject to tax reduction or exemption, the market price should be deemed to be “when trading between independent business operators according to the ordinary terms and conditions of business.” However, the sales price of the engine for maintenance or exemption cannot be deemed to be “when trading between independent business operators according to the ordinary terms and conditions of business,” and thus, the instant disposition cannot be deemed to be contrary to the above statement of opinion. ③ Even if the above expression of opinion by the National Tax Service constitutes a public statement of opinion, the Plaintiff’s profits on the amount of tax exemption and exemption.

C. Whether it constitutes an illegal duplicate tax investigation

In addition to the reasons indicated in the judgment of the first instance on this part, the decision of the first instance that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that it constitutes an illegal duplicate tax investigation is justifiable.

① The purpose of prohibiting double tax investigations is not only to seriously infringe on taxpayers’ freedom of business, etc., but also to prevent the risk of arbitrary tax investigations by the tax authorities. The first investigation is to explain the question about the total nine items in addition to high technology tax reduction and exemption for 30 to 1 hour to the public officials in charge of audits of the secondary regional tax office. In light of the fact that the data submitted at the time of reporting corporate tax were compiled to explain the details of the data (the Non-Party’s testimony to the first instance court), it cannot be deemed that the first investigation was infringed upon the Plaintiff’s freedom of business and rights and interests, such as the Plaintiff’s freedom of business. ② Article 81-2(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that “Where an inquiry is made to determine or correct the tax base and amount of national tax or to inspect or investigate the relevant account books, documents or other articles, or to order the public officials in charge of audit and inspection, it is difficult to view the first investigation to directly explain the details of the report to the public official in charge of audit and inspection team.”

3. Conclusion

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

Judges Kim Jong-cheon (Presiding Judge)