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

가. 원고는 1967년경 설립되어 차량 및 그 부속품의 제조 ・ 판매를 주된 사업으로 영위하고 있는 법인이고, XX 주식회사는 원고, OO자동차 주식회사, □□ 주식회사, ▽▽ 주식회사 등 40여개 계열회사들로 구성된 기업집단인 △△자동차그룹의 물류업무를 통합할 목적으로 정QQ가 40%(10억 원). 그의 장남 정AA이 60%(15억 원)를 출자하여 2001. 2. 22. 설립한 물류전문회사로서(설립 당시의 명칭은 한국◇◇ 주식회사였으나 2003. 6. 20. 상호가 변경되였다 이하 상호변경 전후를 통틀어 'XX'라 한다). 역시 △△자동차그룹의 계열회사이다.

B. After the establishment of XX, the Plaintiff provided the cost of the services that ① complete transport for export (TP. Telecommunication Report). ② The parts for self-production (pIP. MIP Made and Plant’s core parts, such as engines, transformations, and panel and machinery directly produced at the self-employed plant). ③ Equipment leasing services, ④ Pre-delivery Inspection (PDI,redelivery) services (hereinafter referred to as “PP services,” “MIP transport services,” “equipment leasing services,” and “PDI services,” all of which are provided for the instant services.

C. Upon conducting a tax investigation with the Plaintiff around 2009, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff’s tax was reduced unfairly by receiving the instant service from the specially related party under the Corporate Tax Act during the business year 2006 at a higher price than the market price; and (b) Article 52(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 88(1)7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19891, Feb. 28, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (c) determined that the instant service’s market price was calculated pursuant to Article 89(4)2 and (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and notified the Defendant of corporate tax by including the difference equivalent thereto in its gross income so as to correct corporate tax.

E. Accordingly, on January 8, 2010, the Defendant imposed corporate tax for the business year 2004 - 2007 (including additional tax) and special rural development tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff as indicated below.

F. On April 7, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal for revocation of the principal tax, excluding the penalty tax for each business year, among the instant disposition of imposition, but was dismissed on October 26, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal only for the principal portion of corporate tax for each business year among the instant dispositions. As such, the part on imposition of penalty tax and special rural development tax for each business year of the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was filed without due process of the previous trial.

B. Determination

1) Articles 18(2) and (3), and 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act shall not apply to tax litigation pursuant to Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. However, in a case where two or more administrative dispositions are carried out in a series of developmental processes for the same purpose, and are related to each other, if they are related to each other, the administrative agency provided an opportunity to make a new determination on basic facts and legal issues, such as when they go through legitimate procedures for the preceding disposition, and if there is a justifiable reason, such as where the taxpayer seems to be harsh to make another person liable for duty payment through the preceding trial procedure, it shall be deemed that the taxpayer may file an administrative litigation claiming the revocation of the tax disposition even without going through the preceding trial procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Nu7996, Nov. 10, 1989; 9Du1557, Sept. 26, 200).

2) In the case of imposition of penalty tax (underreporting and underpayment)

If the tax base reported by a taxpayer falls short of the tax base that should be reported under the tax-related Acts (additional tax for underreporting), or the taxpayer fails to pay national taxes within the tax payment period under the tax-related Acts (additional tax for unpaid payment) or the tax amount paid falls short of the tax amount to be paid (Articles 47-3 and 47-5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). Such additional tax is imposed and collected on a person who violates the tax-related Acts by adding the amount to the principal tax calculated under the tax-related Acts to the principal tax items (Article 47(1) and (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes as the main tax is imposed and collected as the tax item (Article 47(1) and (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). Thus, as seen earlier, as long as the Plaintiff goes through legitimate pre-trial procedure in relation to the disposition of imposition of principal tax, it is reasonable to view that the above additional tax can be asserted by administrative litigation even if the Plaintiff did not go through the pre-trial procedure. Therefore

3) Cases of imposition of special rural development tax

Article 5 (1) 1 of the Act on Special Rural Development and Fisheries provides that special rural development tax shall be levied as the tax base of the reduced or exempted corporate tax subject to reduction or exemption under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act by the amount calculated by multiplying the tax rate of 20/100 by the tax rate of 20/10. As seen earlier, the special rural development tax in this case is imposed upon South as the income amount is adjusted for business year 2005, 2006 and the corporate tax is increased or exempted accordingly. As such, the special rural development tax in this case is also imposed on the premise that the corporate tax is effective by the increase or decrease of the corporate tax for the pertinent business year, and the above special rural development tax in this case is also imposed on the premise that the corporate tax becomes effective and the basic facts and illegality, which are the principal tax, are common. As seen earlier, so long as the Plaintiff did not go through legitimate procedures for imposition of corporate tax, it is reasonable to view that the

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

A) Regarding the economic rationality of the instant service transaction

The plaintiff entrusted the provision of this case to XX from 2001 in accordance with the plan for the integration and unification of the logistics organization and management of the entire △△ Group. Accordingly, the plaintiff was provided with high-quality services compared to the services provided by the former freight forwarder. In particular, from 2004 in 2004, the integrated logistics system of XX was completed, innovative services were provided throughout the entire logistics process of the △△ Group, such as collaboration in logistics, logistics standardization, logistics networkization, and logistics automation, and 2004 - the cost reduction effect of approximately KRW 42.9 billion in total in the business year 2006. Thus, even if the plaintiff paid high-quality services compared to the previous service price, the service transaction of this case between the plaintiff and XX is an ordinary trade that is economically reasonable.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff is receiving integrated logistics service by covering the service areas other than the instant service subject to taxation from XX, and the total sales revenue rate of the entire XX - 2004 - 2006 business year is average of 7.08% and is not higher than the return rate of the other domestic logistics companies. However, it is unreasonable to separately remove only the instant service areas, the total sales revenue rate of which exceeds 10% from the entire service transactions, and to view them as subject to rejection of unfair calculation under the Corporate Tax Act.

B) Regarding market price assessment of the instant service

According to Article 89 (4) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which is the basis for the disposition of this case, the market price of the service in this case, shall be calculated by adding the sales cost to the sales cost multiplied by the rate of profit during the pertinent business year from a service transaction similar to the pertinent service that is provided to a person other than a person with a special relationship. However, as seen below, the defendant applied the rate of profit based on the service transaction not in the pertinent business year or the pertinent service transaction or other service transaction and thus, the market price of the service

(1) Services transactions for a business year other than the concerned business year.

In calculating the market price of the remaining MIP transport services, equipment leasing services, and PEI services excluding the TPP services during the instant service transaction, the Defendant applied the rate of return on the service transaction conducted in the year 2001 between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, not the business year of 2006, prior to the increase in the service unit price between the Plaintiff and the XX.

(2) Transaction of services between related parties.

In calculating the market price of the instant service, the Defendant applied the rate of return on the relevant service transaction between the Plaintiff with a special relationship and XX.

(3) Services without similarity (related to TPP services for export)

Although the similarity between the TPP services and the TPP services are not recognized because each factor affecting the transaction price decision, such as their contents, details, trade stages, market characteristics, and the degree of competition, are different, the defendant applied the return on the profit of the TPP services for export in calculating the market price of the TPP services for export.

(4) Illegal in calculating market prices related to the lease of self-employed equipment.

The defendant calculated the market price by multiplying the amount calculated at the market price in the case of the lease of one's own equipment among the lease of other's own equipment by the sale of one's own equipment in the case of the lease of one's own equipment. Such method of calculation is illegal against Article 89 (4) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

2) The defendant's assertion

A) Regarding economic rationality

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff left most of the logistics business in XX where the business ability is not verified, the Plaintiff paid the service cost by raising the service cost without reflecting such economic effects in the process of performing the instant service, despite the occurrence of a reduction in height, etc., the Plaintiff is deemed to be an abnormal transaction that lacks economic rationality in light of sound social norms or trade practices. Despite the actual unification of the instant service provided by Y prior to the establishment of Y and the instant service provided by Y after Y acquired Y, the Plaintiff increased the service cost in XX without any particular reason, and the Plaintiff’s failure to present the basis for calculating the unit price increase and relevant data, making it impossible to know the exact reasons for the increase.

B) Regarding the assessment of market price of the instant service

In light of the principle of tax interpretation, the legal provision should be interpreted in light of the equity of taxation and the unity of the pertinent provision, and the verification of market price of the service in this case is sufficient when the price is calculated based on the reasonable method, such as investigating and examining the transaction price for similar service transactions. In this case, most of the △△ Group affiliated companies are providing services to △△ Group, and the plaintiff also entrusts 100% of the transport service to XX, and the service transaction between the plaintiff and XX is de facto monopoly and exclusive transaction with a third party who has no special relation, so the transaction price under Article 89(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act can not be found, and thus, the disposition of taxation in this case based on the market price calculated according to the provision of Article 89(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which is the supplementary method, is legitimate.

(1) MIP transport services, equipment leasing services, and PEI services.

Although it is impossible to verify the apparent increase factors in the above service transaction with XX in October 2001, the Plaintiff increased the unit price on the basis of cost discount and general management increase. Thus, in calculating the market price of the service of this case during the business year of the instant taxable period, it is reasonable to apply the rate of return realized by trading at the unit price before the increase. The rate of return realized by trading at the unit price before the increase between the Plaintiff and Y (the unit price paid to Y) is substantially the same as the rate of return realized by the service transaction between the Plaintiff and Y. Thus, it can be deemed that it constitutes a specially related person’s return on the transaction of providing services between the Plaintiff and Y.

(2) Regarding TPP services for export purposes

Since the TPP services and the TPP services for export are the same as the executor of each service, there is a difference between the transport section and the function or role is in essence the same. In addition, in the case of the TPP services for domestic use, the economic substance of the TPP services can be seen as the compensation for the transport services provided to the customer who is not a specially related party, and the TPP rate provided to the executor is also between the unrelated parties. Thus, the return on profit realized from the TPP services for domestic use between the plaintiff and the TPP services is deemed to fall under the return on profit in the transaction for the provision of services between the "persons other than the specially related parties provided for in Article 89 (4) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act".

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Establishment process of XX and establishment of an integrated logistics system

A) around 199, △△ Automobile Group selected Y and △ Korea Integrated Railroad Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “M comprehensive”) as a company taking full charge of the distribution business of affiliated companies in 199. Accordingly, YY selected Y and △△ Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “M comprehensive”) as a company taking full charge of the distribution business of affiliated companies. Y took charge of the sale and logistics of TP services, export and import logistics of TPP transport services, and the lease of equipment among corporate logistics, MP comprehensive transport of equipment, and △△ Motor Group as a company entrusted with △△△ Motor Group. Y succeeded to the entire business from Y in June 2001, 203, YY succeeded to the computer system and employees from AA in September 203, 203, and succeeds to the whole business sector’s oil transport, procurement, transportation, MIP, equipment leasing, ex post facto management service (A/SP, PDI, import team, combination, international logistics, etc.

B) To build the integrated logistics system within △△ Automobile Group, XX began to develop the distribution information system, such as the integrated transportation management system (iTms inteteping), the export and import logistics system (GOAS Glbal, Overs Adrouts Ltd.), the integrated warehouse management system (WMWWWWL) and start to develop the call center in September 2003 and operate in full scale since January 2004. Due to the construction of such integrated logistics system and the expansion of human and physical facilities, the level of transportation services provided by △△△△ Group to affiliated companies within the △△ Automobile Group was improved compared with the previous ones.

C) The most of the service transactions provided by XX during the taxable period of 2004 - 2006 was conducted between the affiliate companies of △△ Group including the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was provided 100% of the instant services from XX.

2) Contents, etc. of the instant service

(a) TPP services for export;

Y is a service for transporting completed vehicles for export to the camping port of export shipment (in the case of inland accommodation services, the completed vehicle is a service for transporting the completed vehicle from the factory to the factory site, the place of business, or any other place designated by the consumer). Y performed this prior to the establishment of the XX. Even after the commencement of the service from XX, the Plaintiff first paid the completed vehicle to Y in the context of the original cost, and then increased the unit price by 25% on November 2001, on the ground of the increase in general management expenses.

B) MIP Transport Services

The Plaintiff, as a whole, is engaged in transportation, loading, unloading, storage, inventory management, etc. to move his/her automobile parts manufactured at a factory to a assembly factory, with in-house transportation between the factory and in-house transportation between the Plaintiff and in-house transportation between the Plaintiff and in-house factory. Before the establishment of XX, the Plaintiff performed transportation business by entering into an individual contract with 36 companies, and even after the commencement of the provision of services from the XX, the Plaintiff first paid the service fees that he/she first paid to the former 36 companies, as they were, and then increased the secondary unit price of 12.8% on the grounds of the increase in the cost, general management expenses, etc.

(c) equipment leasing services;

The lease of equipment is a service that leases equipment necessary for loading, unloading, and moving of the parts of a motor vehicle within a completed factory to operate the operator (the company that actually provides the above service upon entrustment of the above service). The lease of equipment is divided into the lease of one's own equipment and the lease of other company equipment that takes equipment owned by the snow event. Before the establishment of XX, the entrusted Y does not own equipment and provided only the lease of other company (lease). The Plaintiff paid the former Y as it is, while changing the method of paying the Y in October 2001, raised the application rate of the general management expenses applied in calculating the unit price from 6% to 15%.

(D) PDI services

Before delivering the delivered vehicle to the consumer, the process of final inspection at the factory shipping site or the regional shipping center of the finished vehicle is to check the external assembly and painting of the finished vehicle, the condition of interior finishing materials, etc., and to check the functions of various devices loaded on the vehicle. The inspection service is to check the parts of the garments, tools, sets, and angles installed and put in the finished vehicle, and attach a temporary number and make them a delivery to the customer. Y provided PDI service prior to the establishment of XX, Y offered PI service, and even after the commencement of the above provision of service from XX, the Plaintiff first raised the unit price in October 2001 while paying the service for the former Y even if the service was paid to Y, and the Plaintiff raised the unit price in October 201.

3) The Defendant calculated the market price of the instant service in the business year of 2004 - 2006 according to Article 89(4)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act on the ground that the increase in the service cost performed by the Plaintiff around October 2001 is unreasonable. Accordingly, the Defendant calculated the amount subject to the rejection of unfair calculation by the Plaintiff. The specific details are as follows.

(a) TPP services for export;

The Defendant calculated the market price by adding the amount required to provide the relevant service (hereinafter referred to as “sales cost”) and the sales cost to the amount calculated by multiplying the rate of return on the TPP service provided to the Plaintiff by the rate of return on the TPP service provided to the Plaintiff by Article 89(4)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, considering that the TPP service for export and the TPP service for domestic consumption are identical with the actual performance of each service for domestic use, the difference in the transportation section may occur in essence, but its content is inherently similar and its substance constitutes the transaction between XX and its customers.

B) MIP Transport Services

The rate of return realized by trading the unit price before the second increase between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on the grounds that the rate of return was uniform in the transaction between the Plaintiff and the individual executor prior to establishment of XX, and thus, the market price was calculated by adding the amount calculated by multiplying the sales cost and the respective sales cost by the rate of return 5.20% on the MIP transport service provided to the Plaintiff by the sales cost during October 2001 (the period before the second unit price increase after the first unit price increase).

(c) equipment leasing services;

(1) Cases of lease of equipment for other companies:

The rate of return realized by trading the unit price before the increase between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is the same as the rate of return in the transaction between the Plaintiff and Y prior to the establishment of XX, and calculated the market price by adding the sales cost and the respective sales cost to the amount calculated by multiplying the rate of return 3.47% for the equipment rental service provided by the Plaintiff during March 2001 (the period before the unit price increase) by the rate of return 3.47%.

(2) Cases of lease of private equipment:

On the other hand, in the case of the lease of one-company equipment, the Defendant calculated the amount calculated by multiplying the market price of other company equipment and services computed earlier than the sale price of one-company equipment and services provided to the Plaintiff by the melting market price (hereinafter referred to as the "market price rate of other company equipment and services"), on the grounds that it is impossible to verify the return of profit during the period of increase (3-9 March 2001) and that it is also impossible to calculate the market price by the supplementary method under Article 89(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, on the grounds that the sales price of other company equipment and services provided to the Plaintiff cannot be determined as the market price.

D) PDl services

The rate of return realized by trading the unit price before the increase between the Plaintiff and Y is the same as the rate of return in the transaction between the Plaintiff and Y prior to the establishment of XX 】 The market price was calculated by multiplying the sales cost and the sales cost by the rate of return 4.93% during the period of March 2001 (the period before the unit price increase) by the rate of return 4.93% for the PDl service provided to the Plaintiff by a person other than a person with a special relationship.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4 through 19, each entry of evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

1) Contents and interpretation of the relevant statutes

The rejection of unfair calculation under Article 52 of the former Corporate Tax Act is a system that in cases where a corporation unfairly evades or reduces tax burden by abusing the various forms of transactions listed in each subparagraph of Article 88(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act without using a reasonable method by a person having a special relationship with the person having a special relationship, it is deemed that the person having a taxation right denies it and has the income which appears objectively and reasonably reasonable by the method prescribed in the statutes. In light of the economic person’s position, it is limited to cases where the calculation of an unnatural and unreasonable act is deemed to have neglected the economic rationality. Determination of whether an economic rationality exists shall be made based on whether the transaction is abnormal in light of sound social norms and commercial practices, taking into account the various circumstances of the transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du14257, Dec. 13, 2007).

Meanwhile, Article 88 (1) 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "a case where a corporation borrows or receives money or other assets or services at an interest rate, rate, or rent higher than the market price" as one of "where it is deemed that the burden of tax is unjustly reduced" under Article 52 (1) of the former Corporate Tax Act, and Article 52 (2) and (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 89 (1), (2) and (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provide that "the market price of services, which serves as the basis for whether a corporation is a person with a special relationship, to pay a higher price than the market price to a person with a special relationship, shall be the price generally traded with a third party who is not a person with a special relationship (Article 89 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act). In the absence of such an example, if the market price can not be calculated by such method, the price of services can be calculated by dividing the price of services by 200.

However, since the market price includes the value assessed in an objective and reasonable manner, if it is difficult to calculate the market price by the above method, the pre-determined value by objective and reasonable means may also be deemed the market price. Meanwhile, even if the price for the provision of services is paid at a higher price than the market price, if such transaction does not lacks economic rationality in light of sound social norms and commercial practices, it does not constitute the subject of the avoidance of wrongful calculation. The burden of proving "market price, which serves as the basis for the avoidance of wrongful calculation, is against the tax authority claiming the denial of wrongful calculation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003215287, May 12, 2005).

2) Whether the market price of the instant service is calculated appropriately

A) The Defendant calculated the market price of each service with respect to the transport service between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and a third party with no special relation because there is no comparable transaction with the other party, and on the premise that the market price cannot be calculated by applying Article 89(4)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, with respect to the transport service for export under the premise that the market price cannot be calculated by applying Article 89(4)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. In addition, with respect to the transport service for one’s own equipment, the above market price was calculated by applying the return rate of the TPP service provided to the Plaintiff by Article 89(4)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act for each business year on the grounds that it is impossible to calculate the market price under Article 89(4)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act for one’s own equipment rental service provided to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, in light of the relevant laws and legal principles as seen earlier, the issue is whether the above supplementary assessment method applied by the defendant in calculating the market price of the service of this case is appropriate, and this is first examined.

B) Article 89(4)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the market price shall be the total amount calculated by multiplying the cost and cost of the relevant service by the rate of profit during the pertinent business year from transactions providing similar services to a person other than a person with a special relationship. The "rate of profit," which is based on the above provision, is a person other than a person with a special relationship, and is the one that is realized in the pertinent business year from the transaction of services similar to the pertinent service. Thus, if there is such a example of transaction, the market price may be calculated based on the rate of profit. However, if there is no such example, the value calculated based on the rate of profit calculated based on an objective and reasonable method can also be deemed as the market price in the application of the provision on the denial of unfair act under Article 52(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act as the mother corporation, which provides that the provision on the denial of act should also be applied to sound social norms and practice and the normal transaction between a person with a special relationship.

In the instant case, most of the service transactions provided by XX during the taxable period of the instant disposition - 2006 - 2006 between the affiliates of △△ Group including the Plaintiff with a special relationship, and the Plaintiff also has been provided with most of the services related to transportation from XX as seen earlier. As such, it is difficult to find out the case where the Plaintiff engaged in the service transaction similar to the instant service with a person other than a special relationship, and thus, it is practically impossible to calculate the market price by applying the “rate of profit in the similar service transaction during the pertinent business year” under Article 89(4)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which is based on the market price calculation.

Therefore, in such a case, even though the service transaction conducted between persons with a special relationship or the service is not similar in the pertinent business year, if the rate of return is calculated through a reasonable adjustment that could eliminate the difference in such conditions compared to the contents of the pertinent service, the “rate of return” under Article 89 (4) 2 can be deemed as “the rate of return” under Article 89 (4) 2. In full view of these legal principles and the following circumstances, it cannot be deemed lawful to calculate the market price of the instant service by applying the rate of return, considering that the following services provided by the Defendant to the Plaintiff are similar to the instant service.

(1) MIP transport services, equipment leasing services, and PDI services;

The Defendant’s use of MIP transport services, equipment leasing services (excluding self-owned equipment leasing services), and PDI services (hereinafter “each of the above services”) as similar services is a transaction that is provided to the Plaintiff by a person with a special relationship during the business year 2001, which is the period prior to the prior to the increase of service unit price for at least three years, rather than the business year 2004 - 2006. Furthermore, from 2004, each of the above services is provided through the integrated logistics system established under XX and its contents cannot be deemed to be the same as that of the previously provided services. Thus, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s actual profit rate during the business year 2006 period was always the same as the market price for each of the above services in light of the changes in the market price of each of the above services at a reasonable rate of return during the pertinent business years, and that there was no difference in the market price for each of the above services at a different time between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s wrongful calculation method.

On the other hand, the defendant calculated the amount calculated by multiplying the market value of the other company's equipment from the reported sales of the other company's equipment provided to the plaintiff among the equipment leasing services at the market price for each business year by the amount of the reported sales of the other company's equipment leasing services provided to the plaintiff. However, such a method of calculating the market price is not a legal basis and is not illegal since there is no evidence

(2) TPP services for export purposes;

The defendant's use of TPP services for export is a similar TPP service provided to the plaintiff. The defendant does not assert or prove any similarity in addition to the fact that the TPP services for export and the TPP services for domestic consumption are actually conducted through the same executor. Rather, the TPP services for domestic consumption and export are determined differently in terms of the cost expenditure or tendency according to the plaintiff's domestic sales cost and the project budget and the environment as the items constituting the plaintiff's domestic sales cost and the export sales cost. ② The TPP services are affected by the economic situation or the market environment. ③ The TPP services for domestic use are located at the last stage of the final delivery of the finished vehicle to the final consumer, while the TPP services for domestic use are located at the first stage of the automobile logistics, it is difficult to see that there are most similar factors in determining bilateral return.

Therefore, even though the executor who directly performs the above services is identical to the executor, and its function or role is essentially uniform, and even if, as alleged by the Defendant, in the case of the TPP service, the Plaintiff pays the amount received from the customer separate from the completed vehicle price at the time of the Plaintiff’s sale of the TPP service, the economic value of the TPP service can be viewed as the compensation for the transportation service provided to the customer who is not a specially related party, insofar as there was no reasonable adjustment of the return on profit reflecting the difference as seen earlier, it is unlawful for the Defendant to calculate the market price of the TPP service for export based on the return on profit realized from the TPP service for expropriation between the Plaintiff and

(3) Other circumstances

The substantial reason why the Defendant imposed the instant disposition seems to be that, unlike the actual situation of the freight forwarding industry that does not exceed average 10% due to the Plaintiff’s ‘day-off cycle for the instant service’, the gross profit ratio of the instant service was 15% or more, and the gross profit ratio of the instant service was 15% or more due to the expansion of sales size, and the company affiliated with △△ Automobile Group, including the Plaintiff, committed an unfair act of assistance in XX, and the Fair Trade Commission imposed a penalty surcharge. However, the gross profit ratio is merely an indirect factor in the determination of economic rationality, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s computation of the market price of the instant service is justified solely on the ground that the gross profit ratio is merely an indirect factor in the determination of economic rationality, and it seems that the Defendant’s calculation of the market price of the instant service is unreasonable through the “unfair subsidization of the size of the service,” and whether the economic concentration of the service x the market price of the instant case is likely to be unfair x the market price.

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, inasmuch as it is not recognized that the Plaintiff was provided with high-priced services from XX because the Defendant failed to prove that the market price of the instant service was appropriately calculated, the instant disposition was unlawful without any further determination on the remaining issues relating to the economic rationality claimed by the Plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.