법인세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasons why the court should explain in this decision are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff's assertion as stated in Paragraph 2 below, and therefore, it shall accept it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the proviso of Article 18-2(1)4 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9267, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter “former Corporate Tax Act”) concerning financial holding companies.
Considering the circumstances that the provision of this item (hereinafter “instant provision”) is applicable mutatis mutandis to a general company and thus unreasonable results may arise, it is reasonable to deem that the pertinent provision may apply mutatis mutandis to the Plaintiff, a general company. Therefore, the instant disposition based on a different premise should be revoked as unlawful.
B. In full view of the provisions of the relevant corporate tax laws and regulations that apply to the disposition of this case, such as Article 18-3(1)4 and Article 18-2(1)4 of the former Corporate Tax Act, Article 17-2(6) of the former Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21302 of Feb. 4, 2009), the system for exclusion of income dividends for the adjustment of double taxation on the dividend income of a general domestic corporation like the Plaintiff under Article 18-3 of the former Corporate Tax Act, the system for exclusion of income dividends for the adjustment of double taxation on the dividend income of a holding company is separately defined in Article 18-2 of the former Corporate Tax Act, (2) the proviso to Article 18-2(1)4 of the former Corporate Tax Act, b) and c).
The title provides for both the "subsidiary" under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act or the Financial Holding Companies Act, and it is clearly different from Article 18-3 (1) 4 of the former Corporate Tax Act, which provides for an affiliate of a general corporation, under the former Corporate Tax Act.