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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of corporate tax on the Plaintiff for the business year 2006, March 27, 2012, in excess of the OOO personnel, and the imposition of the OOO personnel on March 28, 2012, in excess of the OOO personnel, shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiff, a domestic corporation operating banking business, disbursed a total of research and human resources development expenses incurred in the business year 199, 2001 to 2003, and 205 as shown in the table 1 below.

Table 1 see Decision 2 see Decision 1

B. When the Plaintiff returns corporate tax for the business year of 1999 or 2003, the Plaintiff included the total amount of OOO in the research and human resources development expenses for the business year of 1999 or 2009, OOOO in the business year of 2001, OOO in the case of shower business year of 2002, and OOOO in the case of the business year of 2003.

C. The plaintiff was confirmed by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office from January 19, 2006 to August 30, 2006 that the research and human resources development expenses fall under the tax credits under Article 10 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act as a result of the corporate tax integration investigation conducted by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office for the business year from January 19, 2006 to August 20, 2005, and filed a request for reduction or correction of the tax amount to be carried forward from the corporate tax amount for each business year of 2005 due to losses, etc., and received the tax credit of the OOOOO on June 1, 2007. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 200580, Sep. 25, 2009>

D. On March 30, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a request for rectification of the tax credit of 2000O2.0 won for the research and human resources development expenses of 205 business year, and the Defendant received a request for rectification of 199, 2001 to 203, and 205 business year of 2005 to the Plaintiff, and then the Plaintiff did not object to the tax credit of 200O2.0 won for the research and human resources development expenses of 200,000 won for 200,000 won for 200,000 won for 20,0000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 2,000.

(2) On the grounds that "it is reasonable to recognize expenses re-entrusted to a business entity that has a research institute or a department exclusively in charge of research and human resources development expenses, out of research and human resources development expenses paid by an entrusted business entity on July 17, 2013", the Tax Tribunal dismissed 199, 200, 2000, 200, 200, 200, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 200,000, 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00

(g) Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) notified each of the OOO members of the corporate tax on August 13, 2012; (b) OO members of the corporate tax on the business year 2006; (c) OO members of the refund of corporate tax; and (d) other ordinary income refund members of the OO members of the refund of corporate tax (hereinafter the same shall apply); and (c) notified each of the subparagraphs 1 through 4 (including each of the subparagraphs 27, 2012, remaining after such reduction (hereinafter the same shall apply); (d) imposition of corporate tax on March 27, 2012 (i) - OO members of the corporate tax on the business year 206; and (e) imposition of tax on other income transferred on March 28, 2012 (i.e., OO members -OO members); and (iii) imposition of tax on each of the instant dispositions. [Recognition members]

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(i) the first argument;

The burden of proving the legality of taxation is against the defendant who is the tax authority, and the National Tax Service has taken the position that the expenses paid as a result of the entrustment of technology development services to an enterprise holding the exclusive department in charge of research and development prior to the instant case shall be subject to the tax credit for technology development expenses. However, the previous position was changed and each of the instant dispositions should have become effective on March 27, 2012, and there was no way to confirm whether the trustee company and the re-trustee company are holding the exclusive department in charge of the trustee company and the re-trustee company and the provision of services due to the closure of stacks related to the book preservation rate or the book preservation rate. Therefore, the reason is entirely attributable to the defendant. The plaintiff who entrusted the research and development services to an enterprise holding the exclusive department is difficult to participate in whether the trustee company directly performs the services entrusted to a third party, and the trustee company has no legal obligation to inform the plaintiff of whether the entrusted company has re-entrusted the services entrusted by the plaintiff and the amount of the re-trustee company, and the burden of proof on the exclusive department possession of the dedicated company.

(ii) the second argument;

Article 10 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7839 of Dec. 31, 2005); Article 9(2) [Attachment 6] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1988 of Feb. 28, 2007) provides expenses subject to the tax credit for research and development expenses as "expenses for the entrustment of technology development services to a research institute or a department exclusively in charge of research and development projects" and does not have any limit. Thus, it is not allowed to interpret the provisions that benefit taxpayers without reasonable grounds. Article 10 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which provides for the tax credit for research and development expenses, aims to promote research and development by granting tax credit to taxpayers more benefit from research and development expenses, which is only partially re-entrusted if the entrusted company does not have expertise in all fields, and there is no need for discrimination between research and development activities performed by the entrusted company and outside human resources, and it is reasonable that the entrusted company's own opportunity to engage in research and development projects cannot be re-related to the entrusted company.

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to the first argument

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of taxation, the burden of proof of non-taxation requirements, deduction requirements, etc. is, in principle, on the person liable for tax payment (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du4049, Jul. 9, 2009). However, it is reasonable to deem that expenses incurred in re-entrustment of research and development services do not fall under the scope of tax credit if the re-entrusted company does not have the research institute or the exclusive department. Even if not, it is reasonable to deem that the re-entrusted company does not fall under the scope of tax credit. Therefore, the burden of proof on such circumstances is the Plaintiff as the person liable for tax payment. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

2) As to the second argument

A) Whether a research and development service is subject to tax credit if it is re-entrusted

In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the expenses incurred in re-entrustment of research and development services do not constitute a tax credit, in full view of the facts as seen earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings.

① In light of the principle of no taxation without law, or the requirements for tax exemption or exemption, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted as the legal text, barring any special circumstances, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. In particular, it accords with the principle of fair taxation to strictly interpret the provisions that clearly indicate preferential provisions among the requirements for tax exemption or exemption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Du11372, Aug. 20, 2009; 2005Da19163, May 25, 2005).

② Article 6(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21307, Feb. 4, 2009); Article 7(1)1 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21307); Article 6(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1) provides that “[t]he business is entrusted with manufacturing and supplying products by the order-based trademark attachment method by re-entrustment” and “[t]he former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1988, Feb. 28, 2007) provides that “[t]he Plaintiff may not be re-entrusted to research and development institutions under the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21307, Feb. 1, 2007) and [t] Article 9(2) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 213565, Dec. 16, 201.

B) Whether the re-entrusted enterprise is eligible for tax credit if it does not hold a research institute or a department exclusively in charge

However, even if the expenses incurred in re-entrustment of research and development services fall under the scope of tax credit, it is reasonable to view that the strict interpretation of the provisions that clearly consider the preferential provisions among the provisions on tax reduction and exemption is consistent with the principle of tax equity, and that the following circumstances revealed in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings are as follows: (a) where a re-entrusted company does not hold a research institute or a department in charge, it does not constitute a tax credit.

(1) Article 9(2) and 9(2) [Attachment 6] subparagraph 1(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1988, Feb. 28, 2007) (1) of the attached Table 6 of the attached Table 1 of the attached Table 1 of the attached Table 6, with respect to the tax credit for research and development expenses from the entrustment of technology development services, a university or junior college, a national or public research institute, a government-funded research institute, a domestic or foreign non-profit corporation (including a research institute affiliated with a non-profit corporation), a research institute (limited

㉳ 「산업기술연구조합 육성법」에 의한 산업기술연구조합, ㉴ 산업디자인진흥법에 의한 한국디자인진흥원, ㉵ 「국가과학 기술 경쟁력 강화를 위한 이공계지원 특별법」에 의한 연구개발서비스업을 영위하는 기업, ㉶ 「산업교육진흥 및 산학협력촉진에 관한 법률」에 의한 산학협력단, ㉷ 한국표준산업분류표상 기술시험 ・ 검사 및 분석업을 영위하는 기업으로 제한적으로 열거하고 있다.", " 한편, 구 조세특례제한법 시행령(2007. 2. 28. 대통령령 제19888호로 개정되기 전의 것) [별표 5] 제1호 가목, 구 조세특례제한법 시행규칙(2007. 3. 30. 재정경제부령 제548호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제6조 제1항에 의하면, 위전담부서'란 기술개발촉진법 시행규칙 제7조에 의하여 인정받은 기업부설연구소, 같은 규칙 제8조의 규정에 의하여 과학기술부장관에게 신고한 기업 내의 연구개발 전담부서를 의미한다.", 또한, 구 기술개발촉진법(2008. 2. 29. 법률 제8852호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제7조 제1항 제2호, 구 기술개발촉진법 시행령(2008. 12. 31. 대통령령 제21214호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제15조 제1항, 제2항, 구 기술개발촉진법 시행규칙(2011. 11. 25. 지식경제부령 제214호로 폐지되기 전의 것) 제7조, 제8조에 의하면, 기업부설연구소로 인정받기 위해서는 일정 수 이상의 연구전담요원을 늘 확보하고 독립된 연구시설을 갖춰 기업부설연구기관으로서 과학기술부장관으로부터 권한을 위탁받은 한국과업기술진흥협회장에게 신고하여야 하며, 연구개발전담부서로 인정받기 위해서는 과학기술분야의 연구개발업무가 그 부서의 주요업무로 되어 있고, 연구전담요원 1인 이상이 늘 확보되어 있는 등의 요건을 갖춰 한국산업기술진흥협회장에게 신고하여야 하며」 위 각 기관의 신고에 관한 사항은 과학기술부장관이 정하여 고시하도록 되어 있다.

As such, the Decree on the Restriction of Special Taxation limits a trustee company to an institution that satisfies certain requirements. This is not easy to determine whether it constitutes a research and development service, and thus, there is a possibility that the tax credit system for research and development expenses may be abused, as well as that, if a research and development activity is performed by an enterprise which is not capable of performing research and development activities, the research and development activities may be performed insufficiently. Therefore, it seems to be aimed at operating the tax credit system for research and development expenses objectively and fairly by granting tax credit benefits

② If a research and development service is entrusted to an institution holding a dedicated department, as alleged by the Plaintiff, regardless of whether the institution has a dedicated department, it is deemed that the use due to the entrustment falls under the tax credit for research and development expenses, such as entrusting research and development services to an institution holding a dedicated department and re-entrusted such services to an institution holding the dedicated department for the purpose of obtaining a tax credit, and thus, the tax credit system for research and development expenses may be abused. In addition, even though an institution holding the dedicated department performs research and development services, it is contrary to the principle of substantial taxation by granting a tax credit on the basis of the form that research and development services are entrusted to an institution

③ The Decree on the Restriction of Special Taxation applies to research and development expenses, compared to research and development expenses subject to tax credit. In the case of a self-research and development, the personnel expenses of researchers and their researchers engaged in the research of science and technology, who are employed by the department in exclusive charge of research and development, are one of the expenses subject to tax credit for research and development expenses. In this regard, the Seoul High Court (2010Nu25635) ruled that even a researcher working for the department in exclusive charge of research and development, the provisions on tax credit for the personnel expenses shall apply only to the case where the researcher is in exclusive charge of research and development, and the provisions on tax credit for the personnel expenses shall apply only to the case where the researcher in exclusive charge of research and development is directly supported by the researcher in exclusive charge of research and development, and the above judgment has been strictly interpreted as falling under the expense credit for research and development (Supreme Court Decision 201Du6844). Accordingly, if the trustee in exclusive charge of research and development has a dedicated department, it is inconsistent with the principle of tax credit for the case of tax credit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.