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

가. 원고는 **시 **읍 ★★리 12-16에서 일반 플라스틱성형품 제조 및 판매업 등 을 영위하고 있는 법인으로서 2006. 12. 1. 주주변동으로 인해 자산총액이 5천억 원을 초과하는 외국법인 ○○가 원고의 발행주식 100%를 소유하게 되었는데, 2006사업연도 및 2007사업연도에 대한 법인세를 선고하면서 조세특례제한법(이하 '조세특례제한법'이라고 한 다) 제26조에서 규정한 중소기업에 대한 임시투자세액공제를 적용하였다.

B. On April 7, 2008, the Plaintiff amended Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19189, Dec. 27, 2005; hereinafter referred to as the "Decree of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises") to "a corporation whose total assets are at least 5,000 million won owns at least 30/100 of the total number of issued stocks shall not constitute a small and medium enterprise." However, since Article 2 of the Addenda to the Decree of the Decree of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19189, Dec. 27, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises"), the Plaintiff is a small and medium enterprise until December 27, 2008; accordingly, the Plaintiff claimed that the special tax reduction for the small and medium enterprise under Article 7 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act should be applied to the corporation for the business year 2006 and 2007 years.

C. Accordingly, on November 11, 2008, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for correction on the ground that “if an unlisted corporation whose total amount of assets is more than KRW 500 million after the enforcement date of the Decree on the Amendment to the Techniques comes to own more than 30% of the total number of issued and outstanding shares, it shall not be subject to the grace period of the Addenda to the Decree on the Amendment to the Heavy Technology” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On January 14, 2009, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on April 28, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. The plaintiff's principal

(1) Since the transitional provision of Paragraph 2 of the Addenda to the Decree on the Amendment of the Technology shall be deemed to apply to all cases where a company recognized as a small and medium enterprise prior to the enforcement of the Decree is excluded from a small and medium enterprise in the future, the instant disposition based on the premise that the transitional provision does not apply to the Plaintiff newly excluded from a small and medium enterprise after the enforcement of the Decree is unlawful.

(2) In the official answer of electronic civil petition, the Small and Medium Business Administration interpreted that a company falling under a small and medium enterprise at the time of the enforcement of the amendment order, as well as a corporation established after the enforcement of the amendment order, applies uniformly. The special taxation policy of the Ministry of Finance and Economy refers to an enterprise whose total assets amount to at least 500 million won falls under Article 2(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act for three years from the enforcement date of the amendment order of the Act on the Regulation of Special Taxation (Article 2(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act) and expressed a public opinion (Article 2(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act for three years from the enforcement date of the amendment order of the Act on the Regulation of Special Taxation). Therefore, the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction, which trusted the above public explanation, was unlawful as it violates the rules of good faith

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the transitional provisions of paragraph (2) of the Part II amended Regulations apply

(A) According to Article 7(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, with respect to an enterprise operating a type of business eligible for reduction or exemption (manufacturing business, etc.) from among small and medium enterprises, the provisions on special tax reduction or exemption for small and medium enterprises, which applies income tax or corporate tax reduction or exemption to their income accrued at the relevant place of business not later than the taxable year ending on or before December 31, 2008, stipulate the scope of the small and medium enterprises as its main business under Article 2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which provides that the scope of the small and medium enterprises is smaller than the size of [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Technology among the small and medium enterprises by type of business and the actual independence thereof shall be less than the size of the number of small and medium enterprises under Article 3(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and the standards for the scale of the amendment [Attachment Table 1] shall not be more than 300,000,000 won of the total number of issued and outstanding stocks.

(B) Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of oral argument as to the instant case, the Plaintiff was a company engaged in plastic manufacturing as its main business from July 1, 1995, and the number of regular workers in the 2006 business year is 118 persons, 1.1 billion won of capital, 134 persons, 1.1 billion won of capital for the business year of 2007, and 1.6 persons, including Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff initially owned shares issued by a foreign corporation ○○, the total amount of assets of which is more than 5,000 won due to the change of shareholders on December 1, 2006, and 100 won of shares issued by the Plaintiff. Upon full consideration of the above facts and the aforementioned relevant provisions, the Plaintiff did not constitute a small and medium enterprise prescribed in the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and the Act on the Control of Special Taxation until December 1, 2006, which became effective as 100% of total number of shares issued by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, whether the transitional provision of Paragraph 2 of the Addenda to the Decree on the Amendment of Technology applies to the plaintiff, i.e., whether the plaintiff's "if a company belonging to a small or medium enterprise becomes not a small or medium enterprise due to the implementation of this Decree" at the time of the enforcement of this Decree. ① Administrative disposition is in principle based on the amendment of the statute in force at the time of the enforcement of the statute, unless otherwise specified in the transitional provision. Even in cases where the amended statute provides the legal effect that is less unfavorable than the previous one in relation to the property rights of the people while applying facts or legal relations, such fact or legal relations are not completed or terminated before the enforcement of the amended law, the revised law shall be based on the revised law if it is not completed or terminated before the enforcement of the amended law. ② The transitional provision of the Addenda does not constitute a system that benefits by extending the period of time to ensure stability of business management for the company that has been benefiting from the existing law due to the amendment of the Enforcement Decree, and it does not constitute a change of the amended law in light of the proviso of Article 2 (2)3) of the Act.

(2) Whether the violation of the law in good faith and respect for tax practice has been committed

In full view of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the whole oral argument, the Small and Medium Business Administration responded to the electronic question civil petition on April 23, 2008 that the provision of the rule applies not only to the case where a company belonging to a small and medium enterprise becomes not a small and medium enterprise at the time of the enforcement of the Decree on the Regulation of Special Taxation, but also to the corporation established after the enforcement of the Decree on the Regulation of Special Taxation," and the question as to whether the special taxation policy of the Ministry of Finance and Economy applied the transitional provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act to determine the scope of a small and medium enterprise on April 26, 2007 and the above 50 million won or more of the total value of the non-listed corporation is deemed to be a small and medium enterprise. However, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff's new opinion that the non-listed corporation's electronic civil petition corresponds to Article 2 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act for three years after the enforcement date of the Ordinance on Special Taxation.

3. Conclusion

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