2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Plaintiff is a foreign-invested corporation established on March 7, 1967 for the purpose of manufacturing, selling, wholesale, etc. electric machinery.

B. Pursuant to Article 121-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7003, Dec. 30, 2003; hereafter the same shall apply), the Plaintiff received a decision on the reduction or exemption of foreign investment tax (hereinafter referred to as "foreign investment tax reduction or exemption") that reduces 50% of the corporate tax for the first time income from the business year in which the first income was generated, and for three years thereafter, it was applied simultaneously with the tax credit for temporary investment under Article 26 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, etc. from 2005 to 1).

C. The Plaintiff filed and paid corporate tax for the business year 2005 or 2009 to the Defendant, and applied the tax credit for temporary investment after applying the tax reduction and exemption from the calculated tax amount as shown in the following table in accordance with the former Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9898, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply).

(Omission of List)

D. However, on December 1, 2010, the Defendant applied the foreign investment tax credit to which the minimum tax is applied in the following table and calculated tax, and applied the tax reduction or exemption to the Plaintiff, and on December 1, 2010, revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 for the special rural development tax for the year 2005, KRW 00 for the special rural development tax for the year 2006, KRW 00 for the corporate tax for the special rural development tax for the year 2008, and KRW 00 for the special rural development tax for the year 2008, and KRW 00 for the corporate tax for the year 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Gap evidence 2, and Eul evidence 1 to 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the calculation of corporate tax, where both tax reduction and tax credit are applied at the same time, the tax credit should be applied first, unless otherwise prescribed in Article 59(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act. Moreover, Article 132(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act merely provides the method of calculating the limit of the amount of tax credit and tax credit subject to the minimum tax, rather than setting the order of application of tax credit and tax reduction and exemption, it does not constitute separate provisions, which is an exception to the net tax credit and tax credit under Article 59(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act. Nevertheless, each of the dispositions of this case by the defendant under Article 132(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, deeming that the defendant applied the tax credit first to the calculated tax amount and applied the tax credit under Article 59(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act, is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

(1) The key issue of the instant case is the order of application in cases where the temporary investment tax credit, etc. subject to the minimum tax provision under Article 132(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and the foreign investment tax reduction or exemption that is not applicable at the same time

(2) Therefore, in the following cases, it is reasonable to view that the order of application of the above deduction and exemption provision is not the minimum tax provision under Article 132(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation, and that the above provision should be applied first, such as temporary tax credit for investment under Article 59(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act.

(A) According to Article 59(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act, where the provisions on reduction and exemption of corporate tax and the provisions on tax payment are applied simultaneously, the application shall be applied in the order of "(i) tax reduction and exemption on income for each business year, and (ii) tax credit for which carried forward and deductible are not recognized, and ③ tax credit for which carried forward are recognized." However, the tax reduction and exemption for foreign investment constitutes "tax reduction and exemption on income for each business year" under Article 59(1)1 of the former Corporate Tax Act, and "tax credit for temporary tax credit" under Article 59(1)3 of the former Corporate Tax Act. Therefore, insofar as there is no " separate provisions on the order of its application" under the Corporate Tax Act and other Acts, foreign investment reduction and exemption should be applied first than that of temporary investment tax credit, etc.

(B) In calculating corporate tax on income for each business year, Article 132(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 126(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the remaining tax amount shall be calculated by calculating the tax amount to which the minimum tax is applied after "the reduction or exemption, etc. is not subject to the minimum tax", and where the tax amount is below the minimum tax, the part equivalent to the deficient tax amount shall not be reduced or exempted. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to see that the minimum tax prescribed in Article 132 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is "the separate limit set forth in the order of deduction in Article 59(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act."

1) The former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation provides for the method of determining ‘the limit of reduction or exemption, etc. to which the minimum tax is applied’ in its language, and does not directly express the order of application with the reduction or exemption to which the minimum tax is not applied.

2) Article 132(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "a reduction or exemption, etc. which is not subject to the minimum tax," rather than setting the order of application of the calculation of the amount of tax, and "a reduction or exemption, etc. which is subject to the minimum tax, etc., from the corporate tax to the corporate tax when calculating the amount of corporate tax," and it seems that "a reduction or exemption, etc. which is subject to the minimum tax, etc." is natural, and it only prescribes whether "a reduction or exemption, etc. which is not subject to the minimum tax" should be applied without separately stipulating its purpose.

3) As in the instant case, there is no change in the minimum tax amount calculated in accordance with Article 132(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and it is difficult to view that the order of application of reduction and exemption related to the computation of the minimum tax under the above provision is spreading even in cases where there is a difference in the order of application of reduction and exemption, etc.

4) Article 126(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act sets the order of exclusion within the scope of "where corporate tax is corrected under the minimum tax amount reported by a taxpayer because it falls short of the minimum tax amount, etc."

(C) Article 82 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 497 of March 14, 2006), "Adjusted account statement" in attached Form 4 of Article 82 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 497 of March 14, 2006), and "Adjusted account statement" in attached Form 4 of the same paragraph is merely a provision of administrative procedures necessary for reporting and paying corporate tax under the former Corporate Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and it cannot be deemed as "the separate limit

(D) Article 132(3) of the current Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that the minimum tax shall be applied at the same time, such as reduction and exemption, etc., and the minimum tax shall be applied. However, in light of the principle of no taxation without law, Article 59(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act and Article 132(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921) stipulates the order of reduction and exemption differently from the order of use prescribed by Article 59(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act. However, in light of the principle of no taxation without law, the foregoing provision is not a provision that newly establishes an exception to the order of reduction and exemption prescribed by Article 59(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act, rather than a provision that verifies the order of reduction

(3) Therefore, each of the dispositions in this case by the Defendant, who corrected the increase in corporate tax amount, etc. by first applying temporary investment tax deduction rather than foreign investment tax reduction.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.