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

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation operating a credit card business from 2003 to 2008, entered into a contract to entrust the establishment of a computer system with multiple entrusted companies, such as OOOO (hereinafter referred to as the “trustees of this case”), and paid 000 won (hereinafter referred to as the “research and development costs of this case”) to the consignees of this case as research and development expenses. (B) The Plaintiff omitted an application for tax credit for the said research and development expenses when it filed a corporate tax return for 2007 business year from 2003 to 2007.

C. After that, on January 4, 2010, the Plaintiff applied the deduction of the amount of research and human resources development expenses to the research and human resources development expenses for the instant research and development project, and applied the deduction of the amount of the corporate tax reverted to the business year 2008, and subsequently requested a correction claim to refund the amount equivalent to the corporate tax amount.

D. On February 19, 2010, the Defendant paid KRW 000 out of the instant research and development costs of the instant case to a third party, on the grounds that the instant trustee was not subject to the tax credit for research and human resources development expenses, and only KRW 000,000, the corporate tax belonging to the business year 2008 under Article 10 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act added the deductible tax amount to the deductible tax amount and refunded the same amount, and rejected the request for correction for the remainder 000,000.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for adjudication on September 14, 2010 after filing an objection, and the Tax Tribunal re-entrusted expenses to a company having a research institute or a department in charge of research and human resources development expenses among research and development expenses re-entrusted to another company on June 22, 2012, on the ground that it is reasonable to recognize such expenses as subject to the tax credit for research and human resources development expenses, and the region Defendant re-entrusted the Plaintiff with a department in charge of research and development expenses under Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which would be subject to the tax credit for the business year 2008, to the Plaintiff, was re-entrusted to a third party by the instant entrusted company entrusted with research and development services in the computer system (one million won in the business year 2003, one hundred won in the business year 2007, and one million won in the business year 2008, and the amount owned by the department in charge under Article 9(2)6(a) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is corrected.

F. On June 25, 2012, the Plaintiff received a written decision on the said judgment.

G. Around July 2012, the Defendant recognized the tax credit for research and development expenses re-entrusted to an enterprise having a dedicated department, and additionally refunded KRW 000,000 to the corporate tax attributed to the business year 2009.

H. On September 20, 2012, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit as to KRW 000,000, which deducted the initial amount of refund from KRW 000 and the additional amount of refund from KRW 000,000.

I. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the rejection disposition against the Defendant on September 28, 2012, 2012, without undergoing the previous trial on October 15, 2012, where the amount of the tax credit for research and development expenses for the business year 2008 exceeds the minimum amount of the corporate tax attributed to the business year 2008 business year, and was unable to be deducted and refunded from the corporate tax for the business year 2008 business year, and on September 24, 2012, the Defendant again filed a request for correction to refund KRW 000 to the corporate tax attributed to the business year 2009, and the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for correction on September 28, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence l through 4, Gap evidence 5 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

On February 19, 2010, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the rejection disposition against the Plaintiff on February 19, 2010. However, according to the above recognized facts, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction of the amount of corporate tax corresponding to the above corporate tax added 000 won to the deductible tax amount for the business year 2008, and the Defendant filed a request for correction of the amount of corporate tax corresponding to the above corporate tax corresponding to the deductible tax amount for the business year 200,000, and the amount of corporate tax belonging to 00,000 won for the business year 208, 2000, 2000, 300,000, 2000, 200, 2000, 200, 200, 201, 200, 208, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 209, 208, 201.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.