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

"A. The plaintiff, as a domestic corporation that runs an insurance business, entrusted a trustee company, such as △△△△△, who owns a department in charge of research and development, with the construction of a computer system, such as "building of a multi-household system that connects the management of goods and makes access thereto through various external channels," and paid ○00 won in total as research and development expenses, by adding 200 won to 00 won in addition to the tax credit for the business year on March 31, 2006; the business year on April 1, 2006 to 31, 207; the business year on March 31, 2007; the business year on April 1, 2007 to 31, 2007; and the business year on March 31, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the business year at which the taxable period ends; the tax credit for 200 won in total was omitted by applying the tax credit for 200 won in total for the business year at 0000 ○○.27 business year.

C. On February 18, 2010, the Defendant: (a) premised on the premise that the money paid by the Plaintiff as above is for research and development; (b) considered the expenses re-entrusted by a trustee to a third party as not subject to tax credit; and (c) added only the deduction and exemption tax amount to the deductible and exemption tax amount for the business year 2007 and the business year 2008; and (d) rejected the Plaintiff’s remainder of the claim for correction.

D. On May 13, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On June 22, 2012, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to the effect that, under the premise that the money paid by the Plaintiff was re-entrusted to a third party for the purpose of research and development, tax credits should be applied to the amount re-entrusted to the company holding the dedicated department among the expenses re-entrusted to the said third party, and the amount corresponding thereto should be re-exporteded to rectify the tax amount.

E. According to the above decision on August 2, 2012, the Defendant recognized the tax credit for research and development expenses re-entrusted to an enterprise having a dedicated department on August 2, 2012, and additionally refunded the total amount of ○○○○○ (○○○○○, KRW ○○0, KRW 2007, and KRW ○○○ in the business year 2008) out of the corporate tax reverted for each business year (the details of the refund for the request for correction are as follows, and the disposition of refusal against the remaining portion still remains without being refunded from the initial amount of the Plaintiff’s request for correction is referred to as the “instant disposition”).

The decision and details of refund on application for correction

The amount of initial claim for correction (A)

(B) the first refund

Additional Refund (C)

The Disposition of this case

(A-B-C)

206

2,989,561,289 won

-

2,293,734,610 won

695,826,679 won

2007

4,673,255,788

8,792,250 won

3,704,449,850 won

80,013,688 won

208

1,683,601,741 won

922,81 7,460 won

234,732,210 won

526,052,00 won

guidance.

9,346,418,818 won

1,01 1,609,710

6,232,916,670 won

2,101,892,438 won

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including evidence 5) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(1) Plaintiff

If research and development services are entrusted to a company holding a department exclusively in charge of research and development, regardless of whether it has a department exclusively in charge of re-entrustment and re-entrusted enterprises, and the expenses incurred from entrustment are subject to tax credit under Article 10 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8827 of December 31, 207).

(2) Defendant

(A) First of all, it was not revealed whether the costs for the entrustment of research and development activities alleged by the Plaintiff were used in research and development activities. Furthermore, in the interpretation of Article 9(5) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the establishment of a computer system can not be deemed to meet these requirements. (B) , and the Restriction of Special Taxation Act separates the entrustment and re-entrustment from the entrustment. In light of Article 10(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 8827 of Dec. 31, 2007), Article 9(2) and [Attachment 6] subparagraph 1(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21307 of Feb. 4, 2009), Article 9(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21307 of Feb. 1, 2009) provides that the expenses for re-entrustment are only one person eligible for tax credit, but not included in the Presidential Decree No. 251(b).

Furthermore, in light of the purport of the exclusive department system, and the Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu25635 Decided that the special provisions on the special taxation on the personnel expenses apply to researchers working in the exclusive department, even if they work in the exclusive department, in the case of self-development, only when they take exclusive charge of research on the development of technology, the expenses paid to the re-entrusted enterprise

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether research and development constitutes "research and development"

Article 9 (5) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that research and development shall be conducted to achieve scientific or technical progress, and to develop a new service and service delivery system. As seen in the circumstances of the above disposition, the service entrusted by the Plaintiff is to build a systematic and comprehensive system to achieve the realization of large financial insurance business, to enhance core business and service competitiveness, and to achieve the optimal and efficient operation of information and communications technology, so it is not difficult to see that research and development is difficult." On the other hand, while the term "afford" or "afford" is included in the term "afford" under the above provision, but it does not aim to obtain a patent, it cannot be interpreted that research and development should be equipped with "newness" or "affordity, which is the requirements for a patent, to constitute a research and development project, as alleged by the Defendant."

Under the principle of no taxation without the law, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, barring any special circumstance, and it shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6781, May 27, 2004); Article 10(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8827, Dec. 31, 2007); [Attachment Table 6] subparagraph 1(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21307, Feb. 4, 2009) provides that the expenses incurred in the development of technology by a domestic or foreign research institute or a department exclusively in charge of a company shall be subject to tax credit; and there is no provision that the truster’s tax payer’s tax payer’s tax payer’s tax payer’s tax payer’s tax payer’s license shall be deducted depending on where it is re-entrusted or re-entrusted.

In particular, it is difficult to expect that the amount of tax credit may vary depending on whether a trustee, such as the Plaintiff, who entrusted research and development services, has a dedicated department or not in accordance with the text and text of the applicable law of this case, is a trustee, unlike the interpretation of the statutes that are subject to tax credit only when re-entrusted is explicitly included in the subject of tax credit, and only when it is directly performed in the dedicated department.

In addition, the legislative intent of Article 10(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8827 of Dec. 31, 2007) is to facilitate research and development by providing taxpayers with more benefit from tax credit on investment in research and development (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Du3115, Jan. 22, 2002). Since large-scale computer development services are a convergence technology development and it is impossible to rely on a single company’s human resources and technology, it is inevitable to entrust part of computer development services to other companies, and the process of amendment of the Act and subordinate statutes in this case cannot be seen as supporting the interpretation of the Defendant’s assertion clearly and inevitably, so long as the Plaintiff entrusted the research and development services to the trustee company holding a dedicated department as stated in the text of the applicable Act and subordinate statutes of this case, it is reasonable to deem that the expenses arising therefrom is still subject to tax credit regardless of whether the sub-trustee company has been sub-entrusted (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Nu25365365, supra.

1) [Attachment Table 6] subparagraph 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590, Feb. 2, 2012

2) See subparagraph 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act [Attachment Table 6] amended by Presidential Decree No. 24368, Feb. 15, 2013

B. A different interpretation cannot be deemed to affect the above interpretation.

(3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful as it violates the principle of no taxation without law.

3. Conclusion

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