2 The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition of imposition of corporate tax for March 25, 2013 against the Plaintiff (State)A Company of the Director of the Tax Office for the year 2007, the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the year 2008 as of May 2, 2013, the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the year 2008, and the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the year 2007 as of March 25, 2013, and the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the year 2008 as of May 2, 2013, shall be revoked.

(1) On September 4, 2006, the Plaintiff (AE Company and FF Company (AE Company are merged with Plaintiff BB on October 1, 2013) was established on September 4, 2006 by dividing a part of them into and dividing into part of KK Company, and the Company changed its trade name into YYT Holdings Holdings Company on September 1, 2008. EEEE Company changed its trade name into RRF Company on September 1, 2008, as a shareholder of 2007 and 2008, and was paid dividends as follows (hereinafter referred to as “the dividends of this case”), the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9267, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the proviso to subparagraph 1(a) of Article 4(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 947, Sep. 26, 2008).

그런데 QQ지방국세청장은 원고 AA상사 및 FF상사가 구 법인세법 제18조의2 제1항에서 정한 지주회사에 해당하지 않는다는 이유로 내국법인의 수입배당금액에 대한 익금불산입을 규정한 구 법인세법 제18조의3 제1항 제4호를 적용하여 원고 AA상사 및 FF상사의 위 익금불산입액 전부를 익금에 산입하고, 그에 따라 법인세를 경정・부과하라고 피고들에게 통보했다.

Accordingly, the defendants corrected and imposed the corporate tax of the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "each disposition of this case") as follows.

Accordingly, on June 20, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on each of the instant dispositions, but all of the appeals were dismissed on September 6, 2013 and September 16, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. As to the imposition of corporate tax

Article 18-2 (1) of the former Corporate Tax Act does not include the amount calculated on the basis of dividends received by a holding company from a subsidiary in excess of a certain amount (Article 3 and 4) such as "part of the amount invested by a subsidiary in an affiliate" (Article 18-2 (1) of the former Corporate Tax Act. The proviso to subparagraph 4 of the same Article provides that "where a subsidiary has invested in a second-tier subsidiary" (Article 18-2 (1) of the former Corporate Tax Act, part of the amount invested by a subsidiary in an affiliate (Article 1

Meanwhile, Article 18-2(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act does not include a certain amount of excess calculated on the basis of dividends received from another domestic corporation that has invested by a domestic corporation that is not a holding company in the same structure as that of Article 18-2(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act, and does not include a certain amount of excess to be included in gross income, and as amended by Act No. 7838, Dec. 31, 2005, where another domestic corporation that paid dividends to the relevant domestic corporation (limited to cases where it is an affiliated company of the relevant domestic corporation) has invested in an affiliated company, the amount calculated as prescribed by the Presidential Decree by applying mutatis mutandis Article 18-2(1)4 of the former Corporate Tax Act (Article 18-2(4).

The basic purpose of Articles 18-2(1) and 18-3(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act is to alleviate double taxation issues by preventing the inclusion of a certain amount of dividends received from a company invested by the corporation in gross income in the calculation of the total amount of dividends received from the company invested by the corporation in compliance with the purpose of Article 18-2(1) and Article 18-3(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act. Therefore, it is necessary to interpret that the dividends received by the corporation should not be included in gross income

The purpose of Article 18-2(1)4 of the former Corporate Tax Act is to restrict mutual investments by having a holding company’s subsidiary include a certain amount in its gross income when it has invested in an affiliate, but it does not constitute a mutual investments if the subsidiary has invested in a second-tier subsidiary, so it does not constitute gross income. The need to restrict such mutual investments and to recognize exceptions thereto does not have any reason to regard any different cases where another domestic corporation that has invested in an affiliate by a domestic corporation that is not a holding company, and Article 18-3(1)4 of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that “Article 18-2(1)4 of the former Corporate Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis” under Article 18-3(1)4 of the former Corporate Tax Act shall include exceptions to the inclusion of gross income under the proviso.

Since the EEE that paid dividends to the Plaintiffs was invested in an affiliate company that is a subsidiary company or a second-tier subsidiary of a holding company, the EE that should be included in gross income pursuant to Article 18-3 (1) 4 of the former Corporate Tax Act shall be excluded from gross income as it falls under Article 18-2 (1) 4 (a) of the former Corporate Tax Act that applies mutatis mutandis under the above provision.

Therefore, each of the instant dispositions that EE included part of the amount invested in an affiliate company in its gross income on the ground that the proviso of Article 18-2(1)4 of the former Corporate Tax Act does not apply mutatis mutandis to a domestic corporation that is not a holding company, and that Article 18-3(1)4 of the former Corporate Tax Act is illegal.

B. As to the imposition of additional tax

The plaintiffs decided not to include the dividends of this case in the gross income according to the opinions of tax experts, including certified public accountants, even without precedents regarding the interpretation of Article 18-3(1)4 of the former Corporate Tax Act. Therefore, the plaintiffs' failure to report and pay corporate tax in a proper manner is justified. Therefore, the part of the penalty tax in this case is unlawful.

3. Determination

A. Part of the corporate tax

1) The amendment history of the provision on exclusion of import dividends from taxable income

A) Although the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act has been prohibited from establishing a holding company, upon the occurrence of the need to introduce a holding company for corporate restructuring, the said Act was amended by Act No. 5813 on February 5, 199, and limited the establishment of a holding company whose main business is to control the business activities of the domestic company through stock ownership. In addition, the Corporate Tax Act amended by Act No. 6047 on December 28, 1999 (amended by Act No. 6047, Dec. 28, 1999) newly established a provision on the exclusion from taxable income that allows the holding company to exclude an amount equivalent to a certain ratio of the dividend income that the holding company received from its subsidiary from its corporate assessment from corporate tax assessment (Article 18-2). However, in order to prevent the reckless expansion of the enterprise group due to chain investments, the holding company excluded part of the dividend paid by the holding company from the exclusion from taxable income, taking into account the amount re-investment in a subsidiary company’s subsidiaries

B) The Financial Holding Companies Act was enacted on October 23, 200 so as to establish a financial holding company that controls a financial company that operates the financial business to enhance the competitiveness of the financial institution through largeization and concurrent operation of financial institutions. Accordingly, Article 18-2 of the Corporate Tax Act amended on December 29, 200, which included a financial holding company under the Financial Holding Companies Act as a holding company, and Article 18-2 of the Corporate Tax Act stipulates that a subsidiary of a financial holding company shall be excluded from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the income, taking into account the fact that the transfer of a second-tier company controlled by a subsidiary under the Financial Holding Companies Act is allowed, and that a second-tier company, which is allowed to be transferred to an affiliate under the Financial Holding Companies Act, shall also be excluded from the exclusion from the exclusion from the income amount. In addition, in order to promote the equity in taxation with the holding company, Article 18-3 of the Corporate Tax Act does not stipulate any provision for the exclusion from the exclusion from the income amount of the income amount of the dividends.

C) Article 18-2(1)4 of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6558, Dec. 31, 2001) provides that an institutional investor, who is a subsidiary of a financial holding company, holds more than 1% of stocks of a corporation through debt-equity swap of loans, venture business investment, etc. for the purpose of supporting restructuring through the establishment of a financial holding company, shall be excluded from the deduction of the amount of gross income even in cases where the subsidiary of a financial holding company is an institutional investor.

D) Article 18-2(1)4 of the Corporate Tax Act was amended by Act No. 7005 on December 30, 2003, and the Fair Trade Act is expected to establish a new provision that permits the acquisition of shares of a second-tier company as well as a financial holding company for a general holding company. In light of the fact that a subsidiary of a general holding company has invested in a business-related second-tier company as determined by the Fair Trade Commission, it stipulated that it

E) Article 18-3(1) of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7838, Dec. 31, 2005) newly established Article 18-3(1)4 of the former Corporate Tax Act, which allows a domestic corporation that is not a holding company, to exclude some of the dividends from the exclusion of gross income, even in cases where a domestic corporation, other than a holding company’s subsidiary, has invested in an affiliate company in order to restrain reckless vertical expansion due to chain investments in affiliate companies.

F) Since then, Article 18-2 of the Corporate Tax Act was amended by Act No. 9267 on December 26, 2008, Article 18-2 deleted both Article 18-2(1)4 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 18-3(1)4 of the former Corporate Tax Act to deduct the reduction of re-investment from the amount of income dividends for the exclusion of income dividends in order to abolish a regulation that is not related to the original purpose of the system for exclusion of income dividends,

2) Determination

Article 18-3 (1) 4 of the former Corporate Tax Act provides for the import dividends of a general domestic corporation that is not a holding company and provides that where a dividend payment corporation has invested in an affiliate company, the amount calculated under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree by applying mutatis mutandis Article 18-2 (1) 4 shall be excluded from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the income, and Article 17-3 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the calculation of the above amount shall be made by multiplying the dividend amount by the ratio of the domestic corporation's investment in the dividend payment corporation (30,50 or 100, as the case may be) and the ratio of the book value of the stocks, etc. acquired by investing in an affiliate company

In a similar way, the main sentence of Article 18-2 (1) 4 of the former Corporate Tax Act is the number of holding companies.

According to the provision on the dividend payment, if a subsidiary of a corporation that pays dividends has invested in an affiliate company, the amount calculated by multiplying the dividend amount received from the subsidiary by the ratio prescribed by the Presidential Decree considering the amount invested by the affiliate company in the affiliate company shall be excluded from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion, and the above ratio shall also be calculated by multiplying the fixed ratio (80/10 or 100 as the case may be) according to the ratio invested by the holding company in the affiliate company by the "ratio of the book value of the stocks, etc. acquired by the subsidiary after investing in the affiliate company in the affiliate company from the holding company".

On the other hand, the proviso of Article 18-2 (1) 4 of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that where a subsidiary, which is a dividend payment corporation, has invested in a second-tier company, a subsidiary under the Financial Holding Companies Act has invested in a second-tier company, a subsidiary under the Financial Holding Companies Act has invested in a second-tier company, and a subsidiary under the Financial Holding Companies Act is an institutional investor,

In light of the structure, language, and form of the aforementioned relevant statutes, Article 18-3 of the former Corporate Tax Act

The meaning of "Article 18-2 (1) 4 of the Corporate Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the amount calculated under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree" in relation to paragraph (1) 4 of Article 18-2, it is reasonable to view that the scope of exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion without repeating the phrase "the amount received by the corresponding subsidiary" in the legislative technology under Article 18-2 (1) 4 of the Corporate Tax Act, and it is difficult to view that Article 18-3 (1) 4 of the former Corporate Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the exception provided in the proviso

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, under the premise that the proviso of Article 18-2 (1) 4 of the former Corporate Tax Act is applied to the plaintiffs

The Plaintiffs’ assertion is difficult to accept.

B. Additional tax portion

Under the tax law, penalty taxes are administrative sanctions imposed in accordance with the law in cases where a taxpayer violates a duty to report and pay taxes without justifiable grounds in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, and the taxpayer’s intention and negligence is not considered, and the land or mistake of the law does not constitute justifiable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du1829, May 23, 2013).

Even if the plaintiffs received advice from tax experts, such as certified public accountants in filing and paying corporate tax as alleged by the plaintiffs, the failure of the plaintiffs to report and pay corporate tax on the dividend of this case is attributable to the legal sites or misunderstanding of Article 19-3(1)4 of the former Corporate Tax Act. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason for this.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit.