2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 70% is borne by the Plaintiff, and 30% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2008, June 4, 2012, the part exceeding the OOOOO members among the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2008, the reduction or correction of the OOO members for the business year 2010, the reduction or correction of the OO members for the business year 201, the amount exceeding the OOO members among the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2007, the amount exceeding the 2007, the amount exceeding the OO members among the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year 209, respectively, shall be revoked.

"A. The plaintiff is a corporation that is established on May 2, 1996 and engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling gold 200, and mainly manufactures, assembles, and supplies mobile phone parts, which are plastic products, to BB Electronic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "BE"), and from May 206, 2006, assembles and supplies mobile phone Posysysysys." (B) while conducting the above mobile phone Posysying business, the plaintiff was provided with 20 OB 20 OB 20, which is the subcontractor company established on May 9, 2006, with 200 OB 20 OB 20, which was designated as its representative director (hereinafter referred to as "CCC 200,") and the defendant was provided with 200 OB 20000 OB 2000 OB 200 OB 203.28 20

E. In the tax trial on July 3, 2012, it is unreasonable that the Tax Tribunal made a non-deductible of all gold-type repair expenses paid to BB precision on December 17, 2012. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assessment base and tax amount were corrected according to the result of re-audit of the gold-type repair services supplied by BB precision, and the remainder of the claims were dismissed.” (f) The Defendant re-audit of the details of the gold-type repair services for BB precision under the name of BB precision in 2007, and only the difference between the 0000 and the 200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

“1) In light of the fact that the BB electronic designated unit price is lower than that of the Plaintiff’s continuous customer through the pertinent transaction, and that the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff does not fall under the transaction in a similar situation, the transaction between the Plaintiff and the CCC, respectively, does not constitute an “market price reflecting objective exchange values.” Meanwhile, the Plaintiff paid 20% higher than that of CCCtech to prevent the discontinuance of the business due to the sCCtech’s deficit in order to maintain the mobile phone spool assembly business, based on the management judgment to increase the sales of the mobile phone spool, the Plaintiff’s act is economic rationality. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s act does not constitute wrongful calculation as referred to in Article 52 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same).

3) In accordance with the review decision of the Tax Tribunal, the Defendant imposed corporate tax on the Plaintiff’s employees by deeming the labor cost of the Plaintiff’s employees employed at the BB-level workplace as expenses not included in the deductible expenses. However, this is unlawful in violation of the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change and the principle of prohibition of duplicate investigation under Articles 79(2) and 81-4(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and even if that is not so, the said employees were only at the BB-level workplace and performed the Plaintiff’s work, and thus, it is unlawful to deem them

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the Plaintiff’s payment of the service price increased by 20% compared to the BB electronic designated unit price constitutes a wrongful calculation

Article 52(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that where it is deemed that the calculation of a domestic corporation’s act or income amount has reduced unreasonably the tax burden on the corporation’s income due to transactions with a specially related person, the income amount of the corporation for each business year may be calculated regardless of the act or calculation of income amount of the corporation (hereinafter “Calculation of wrongful calculation”). Article 52(2) provides that “the rejection of unfair calculation shall be based on the market price applied or deemed as applicable to sound social norms and commercial practices and normal transactions between unrelated persons.” Article 88(1)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22577, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that “Where a corporation borrows or was provided with money or other assets at an interest rate or rent higher than the market price, or where it appears reasonable to have determined that the relevant corporation engaged in an unfair transaction with a specially related person should be based on an objective and reasonable method under Article 88(1)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.”

With respect to the instant case, the Plaintiff was awarded a mobile phone assembly service with BB electronic designated unit price from BB electronics, and subcontracted the entire mobile phone aggregate assembly service to CCCE. From around 2006 to June 2008, the Plaintiff paid CCCE an amount calculated by subtracting 5% from the service price to BB electronic designated unit price. From July 2008 to December 201, 201, the Plaintiff paid 20% from BBE designated unit price. CCC’s operating income was converted to black from 2007 to 2009, and was converted to the enemy again in 2011. In full view of the purport stated in B’s evidence 6, CCCE’s overall argument was not disputed between the parties, and CCCE’s agreement was concluded between 4.7.2009 and 9.7.7.9% of the mobile phone assemblies, and the fact that CCCEE’s external digital subcontract was recognized to be the non-designated entity, including GHEEE.

In light of the above facts and the facts indicated in the CCC’s statement and the following: ① (i) the Plaintiff’s provision of the service that the Plaintiff and CCC conducted is completely consistent with the 20-year rate for the 20-year rate for the 20-year rate for the 20-year rate for the 30-year rate for the 20-year rate for the 20-year rate for the 30-year rate for the 20-year rate for the 20-year rate for the 20-year rate for the 20-year rate for the 20-year rate for the 30-year rate for the 20-year rate for the 20-year rate for the 20-year rate for the 30-year rate for the 30-year rate for the 20-year rate for the 30-year rate for the 30-year rate for the 30-year rate for the 20-year rate for the 30-year rate for the 10-year rate for the 3% rate for the 30-month.

2) Whether the gold-type repair service payment that the Plaintiff paid to BB precision is reasonable

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 7, 8, 13, 16, and 17, the sales tax invoice (Evidence No. 16) issued under BB's name is an OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-U-O-O-O's repair cost of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant's inclusion of the above OO in deductible expenses is justifiable.

3) Whether the non-deductible of personnel expenses incurred after the review decision by the Tax Tribunal violates the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change and the principle of prohibition of duplicate investigation

Article 79(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the Council of Tax Judges or the Joint Session of Tax Judges shall not make any unfavorable decision against the claimant, rather than the request for adjudgment. Meanwhile, the re-audit decision made by the ruling authority constitutes a modified decision made in favor of the intent to take part of the decision on the objection, etc. by considering the results of re-audit of the relevant disposition concerning the matters pointed out in the relevant decision, and the decision on re-audit takes effect by supplementing the contents of the subsequent disposition in accordance with the subsequent disposition of the disposition taken by the disposition authority. Therefore, it is reasonable to determine whether the decision is disadvantageous to the claimant under Article 79(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes or not by comparing the subsequent disposition in accordance with the disposition made by the ruling authority and the decision on re-audit. Re-audit of the disposition authority in accordance with the ruling on re-audit is limited to the extent that the need for re-audit is recognized by the ruling authority, and it is not, in principle, permissible for the disposition authority to investigate a new taxation requirement or make a subsequent disposition that increases the amount of the initial disposition (see

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant: (a) conducted a disposition to impose corporate tax and revise the amount of losses as seen earlier on June 4, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the initial disposition”); (b) conducted a reinvestigation of the particulars of the repair cost and the correction of the tax base and tax amount; and (c) conducted such a disposition on February 21, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “ex post facto disposition”); and (d) prescribed the tax base and tax amount of the subsequent disposition by including the personnel expenses of the employees of the Plaintiff who worked in BB even without the initial disposition as non-deductible items in the non-deductible items; (b) there is no objective evidence to deem that the Defendant added the above personnel expenses to non-deductible items based on a new investigation that had the substance of the tax investigation as at the time of the subsequent disposition, regardless of the determination by the Tax Tribunal; (c) O200 out of the portion of the disposition for non-taxation for the business year that exceeds the scope of the corporate tax review conducted by the authority for exclusion of losses; and (d O20000 out of the business year.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.