법인세경정거부처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From 2011 to 2013, the Plaintiff is a non-profit medical corporation. From the perspective of 2011 to the business year of 2013, the Plaintiff spent the following expenses to acquire fixed assets of “medical device, etc.” as stipulated in Article 56(6)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25194, Feb. 21, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 29-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 409, Mar. 13, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) to the Plaintiff for the purpose of acquiring fixed assets: (a) separate accounting by replacing the amount stated in the table as expenses for the proper purpose business under the “medical development accounting” under Article 56(10) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act with the Defendant’s report on the tax base attached
[ Table] 2,91, 279,806 won in the business year 2012 - Medical device 2,266,449,980 won in the business year 2012 - 3,430,410,00 won in the aggregate of KRW 5,412,180,729,786 won in the business year 2012 3,430,410,00 won in the aggregate of KRW 2,412,180,729,786 won in the business year 2012
B. On the other hand, around November 8, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired 909 land, etc. (hereinafter “instant land”) of Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City in KRW 19,536,00,000,000, and disbursed KRW 19,123,00,000 in the business year 2012 to pay the price and incidental expenses, including acquisition tax (hereinafter “each of the above expenditure amount”), and did not keep separate accounting of the instant expenditure amount as the proper purpose business reserve fund under the “Medical Development Accounting” (hereinafter “the instant expenditure amount”).
C. After July 23, 2015, the Plaintiff’s “the instant expenditure amount falls under the actual expenditure amount of the reserve fund for its proper purpose business,” and erred in the amount of the instant expenditure amount due to the Plaintiff’s simple error.