XX Stock Company

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 00 of corporate tax for the business year 2005, KRW 00 of corporate tax for the business year 2006, KRW 000 of corporate tax for the business year 2007, KRW 000 of corporate tax for the business year 2008, KRW 000 of corporate tax for the business year 2009, KRW 000 of value-added tax for the second period of the business year 2005, KRW 000 of value-added tax for the first period of the second year of the year 2006, KRW 000 for the second period of the value-added tax for the second year of the year 2006, KRW 00 for the second period of the value-added tax for the second year of the year 207, KRW 100 for the second period of the value-added tax for the second year of the year 2008, KRW 200 for the second year of the value-added tax for the second year of the year 2009 each of the year 200.

2. Purport of appeal

A. In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff in the judgment shall be revoked. Each disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on February 1, 201, out of KRW 000 of the corporate tax of the business year 2008, and KRW 000 of the corporate tax of the business year 2009, shall be revoked.

B. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above cancellation is dismissed.

The reasoning for this Court's explanation is as follows: ① among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, the 6th, the 14th, and 16th "A" were used as "A"; ② In addition, the 2th "paragraph (2)" added the judgment of the parties to the claims, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance; thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination as to the parties’ assertion

A. As to the plaintiff's assertion

(1) The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff was actually engaged in the plaintiff company because leB was in the position of "the plaintiff's honorary chairperson" and was directly involved in major pending issues such as the execution of the plaintiff company's funds, etc., but the defendant's payment of leB should be viewed as expenses unrelated to the plaintiff's business and excluded the corresponding amount from the plaintiff's deductible expenses and made the disposition

(2) Therefore, barring special circumstances, such as the fact that if the tax authority received a written confirmation from a taxpayer to a certain taxable fact in the course of conducting a tax investigation, it may not readily deny the value of the written confirmation unless there is a special reason that the written confirmation has been signed and sealed compulsorily against the will of the originator, or that it is difficult to use it as a supporting material for specific facts due to the lack of the content thereof, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du2928, May 22, 1998; 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002; 2006Du8068, Sept. 25, 2008).

However, according to the facts cited above and evidence, this part of the plaintiff's representative director at the time of the investigation into the plaintiff by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office signed a letter of confirmation that "leB, who is a non-standing officer, did not actually work in us, paid or borne labor costs, such as salary for 2008 to 2009, such as wage for non-standing officer". The above statement of payment attached to the above letter of confirmation contains several facts that the plaintiff's salary paid to leB was written separately in 2008 and 2009 (No. 3 evidence and records No. 200 to 201). In full view of all of the above facts and the above legal principles, even if considering the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and all of these courts, it is difficult to see that leB actually worked in the plaintiff's business, the plaintiff's assertion that the issue amount paid to leB should be recognized as deductible expenses for the reason that it is difficult to see that leB actually worked in the plaintiff's business.

B. As to the defendant's argument

(1) The Defendant asserts that, in light of the above facts, the Plaintiff’s tax base on the 5-year rent per unit constituted “the reasonable and lawful market price,” under Article 49-2(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, 20% of the building of this case, which is the same condition as the office leased to Dong 1, Young-dong 2 (hereinafter “Y 1,”), 5-2 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200; 20% of the building of this case, which is a related party; 30% of the building of this case; 40% of the building of this case; 20% of the rent per unit, which is the lessee of this case; and 5-year rent per unit, which is calculated by applying the monthly interest rate of time deposit under Article 49-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act; and 30% of the rent per unit, the Plaintiff’s tax base of value-added tax on real estate rental services, is unreasonable or unreasonable.

However, according to the facts cited earlier and evidence, the market price of this case cited as the basis for determining illegality of the transaction of this case between the Plaintiff and a person with a special relationship with the Plaintiff is calculated by applying the interest rate of time deposit to the lessee pursuant to Article 49-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, which is the provision on the calculation of the tax base of real estate rental deposit. The sum of the leased rent of this case is the monthly rent actually paid to the Plaintiff and the unit price of the leased rent is calculated by dividing it into the unit price of the leased money (No. 3, No. 202-206 pages). This is calculated by the Defendant’s arbitrary calculation based on the relevant provision, as well as the standard for determining illegality of the market price of this case’s rental deposit by the Plaintiff, which is the standard for determining illegality of the market price of this case’s rental deposit, and the provision that the Defendant asserts that the sale price of this case’s rental deposit is no more than the reasonable standard for calculating the market price of this case’s rental deposit.

3. Conclusion

If so, all appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.