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

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the whole purport of the pleading in each of the statements in Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1, 9-1, 2, 2, and 6, and there is no counter-proof.

A. From March 11, 1989, the Plaintiff engaged in the manufacturing of bedclothes in the trade name of 60B L and 2L of the Shindong, Daegu-gu, and 2L on November 10, 2001. On December 23, 2002, when filing a revised global income tax return for 2001 to the Defendant, the Plaintiff applied for reduction of KRW 93,133,935 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 6762 of December 11, 2002) among global income amount of KRW 892,131,91 as global income amount, and applied for reduction of KRW 93,13,935 as special tax amount of small and medium enterprises.

B. As to this, on or before December 31, 2001, the Defendant: (a) on March 18, 2003, on the ground that the Plaintiff had already closed its business before December 31, 2001, excluded the reduction or exemption of the above special tax amount of small and medium enterprises 93,13,935 won (hereinafter “the instant tax reduction or exemption”); (b) on the aggregate of KRW 18,480,00 (8,800 for year 1998 + + KRW 230,000 for year 1999 + KRW 9,450,000 for year 200 + its interest amount + the total of KRW 5,301,260 for year 198 (3,854,400 for year 199 + KRW 607,160 for year 199, KRW 160 for year 200 for year 200,381,70839,7.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition and the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the plaintiff asserts that the exclusion of tax reduction or exemption is unlawful on the grounds of the closure of business, notwithstanding the use of the tax amount reduced or exempted in this case to repay 500

B. Determination

(1) Therefore, Article 7 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "the tax amount calculated by applying the reduction or exemption rate to the income tax or corporate tax on the income accruing from the relevant business shall be reduced or exempted not later than the taxable year ending on or before December 31, 2003." Article 145 (5) of the same Act provides that "the resident, etc. who is reduced or exempted under the above provision shall use the amount equivalent to the amount calculated by subtracting the special rural development tax imposed on the deducted tax amount from the deducted tax amount as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, for the investment in fixed assets or long-term loan shall be used under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree." Article 137 (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17829 of Dec. 30, 202) provides that "the resident, etc. who is subject to the reduction or exemption under the provisions of Article 145 (1) of the Act shall use the deducted amount for a temporary reduction or exemption or exemption of the income tax amount within 16 years."

(2) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, provided that the Plaintiff was not subject to the special tax reduction or exemption under Article 7(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, on the grounds that the said village was already closed before December 31, 2001.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court below is just and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Male-gu (Presiding Judge)