법인세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
From March 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013, the Plaintiff established an information protection system (hereinafter “instant system”) composed of equipment, systems, etc. as indicated in the table “investment content” in attached Table 1 inside the Plaintiff, and paid corporate tax for the business year 2013 (hereinafter “instant provision”) by applying the tax credit under Article 25(1)9 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11989, Jul. 30, 2013; hereinafter the same) to the cost of installation indicated in the table “investment amount”.
On June 27, 2018, the Defendant determined that the instant system does not correspond to “technology outflow prevention facilities” under the instant legal provision, and subsequently corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 117,552,69, and penalty tax of KRW 76,009,573 for the business year 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
On September 21, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a tax appeal on September 21, 2018, but was dismissed on January 28, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff’s instant system asserting the legitimacy of the instant disposition as to the following facts: (a) written evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (b) the entire purport of the instant disposition is legitimate; and (c) the instant system constitutes “information protection system” under Article 13(6) [Attachment 8] [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 478, Mar. 13, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) delegated in sequence from the instant legal provision, which constitutes “facilities to prevent technology leakage” under the instant legal provision.
In order to apply the legal provisions of this case, the “purpose” to prevent technology leakage in the construction and function of the instant system, as alleged by the Defendant, is not necessary.
Even if the purpose of technology outflow prevention is required,
However, the Plaintiff is exclusively responsible for the instant system.