Seoul High Court-2014-Nu-5402 ( November 11, 2014)

Cho Jae-2013-China-2810 (2013.04)

In calculating the corporate tax, it is reasonable to recalculated the deductible tax amount reduced or exempted according to the reduction of corporate tax in the current year and deduct it from the calculated corporate tax amount.

In calculating the corporate tax for interim prepayment, it is reasonable to recalculated the deductible tax reduction and exemption due to the reduction of corporate tax in the current year and deduct it from the calculated corporate tax amount. Therefore, it is reasonable to impose an additional tax on the ground that the disposition agency undergoes the interim prepayment corporation tax for the business year 2012.

Article 63 (Interim Prepayment)

2014du46102 Disposition of revocation of revocation of corporate tax rectification

○○ Logistics Corporation

○ Head of tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Nu54402 Decided November 11, 2014

2015.04.09

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 63(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12166, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter “amended Corporate Tax Act”) provides that a domestic corporation whose period of each business year exceeds six months shall be the interim prepayment period for six months from the starting date of the pertinent business year and which shall pay the amount calculated by dividing the amount of tax calculated as corporate tax for the immediately preceding business year by the number of months in the immediately preceding business year and then multiplying by six, the amount of tax to be deducted by the amount of tax calculated as corporate tax for the immediately preceding business year.

Meanwhile, Article 55(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11128, Dec. 31, 201) sets the corporate tax rate of a domestic corporation for the business year that begins between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011 as "20,000 won + (22/100 of the amount exceeding 200,000,000,000,000,000 won)" (hereinafter referred to as "pre-revision tax rate"). Article 55(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11128, Dec. 31, 201; Article 55(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11128, Jan. 1, 201) provides for "where the tax base exceeds 20,000 won but less than 200,000,000 won, 200,0000 won.

In addition, Article 132(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11133, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter the same) provides that "where a domestic corporation's income for each business year is less than the amount calculated by multiplying the tax base by 14/100 [where the tax base is more than 10 billion won but not more than 100 billion won in deductible expenses or income deduction under subparagraphs 1 and 2, the portion of the tax base shall not be reduced or exempted, etc.; and where the tax base is less than the amount calculated by multiplying the tax base by 10/100; in cases of a small or medium enterprise and a social enterprise under Article 85-6, the portion of the deficient tax amount shall not be reduced or exempted, etc.];

B. In full view of the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the following facts: ① (a) on March 25, 2012, the Plaintiff reported and paid corporate tax for the business year 2011 by applying the tax rate prior to the amendment to the Defendant on the basis of KRW 3,140,927,424; and (b) on August 23, 2012, when filing a return on the amount of tax for interim prepayment for the business year 2012, the amount of tax to be assessed as KRW 2,857,206,749, the amount of tax to be assessed as KRW 2,658,463,712; and (c) on the basis of the amount of tax to be assessed as KRW 583,501,50,500, the amount of tax to be assessed as the amount of tax for interim prepayment for the business year 2012; and (c) on the basis that the Defendant imposed the amount of tax to be assessed as KRW 363736,37374,73637.

Furthermore, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the revised tax rate should be applied to the calculation method of the amount of the amount of the tax for interim prepayment under Article 132 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, on the ground that (i) the calculation method of the amount of the tax for interim prepayment under Article 132 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is based on the calculation method of the amount of the tax for interim prepayment, and (ii) the calculation of the amount of the tax for interim prepayment under Article 132 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is based on the calculation method of the amount of the tax for interim prepayment under any of the following subparagraphs, which is a premise for calculating the amount of the tax for interim prepayment, if the "amount of tax after being subject to reduction or exemption, etc. under any of the following subparagraphs, which is the basis for calculating the amount of the tax for interim prepayment, shall not be applied to the amount of the tax for interim prepayment in calculating the amount of the tax for interim prepayment."

C. In light of the above circumstances cited by the court below, the method of calculating the tax amount for interim prepayment stipulated in Article 63(1) of the amended Corporate Tax Act and Article 132(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act based on the payment performance of the immediately preceding business year is a structure that calculates the tax amount for interim prepayment for the pertinent business year. In cases where the tax amount for interim prepayment should be calculated by applying the changed tax rate after applying the changed tax rate, not the tax amount actually applied in the immediately preceding business year, as alleged by the plaintiff, if the revised tax rate is applied only to the part of the tax amount for interim prepayment, and it is unreasonable to calculate the tax amount for interim prepayment which is entirely irrelevant to the payment performance of the immediately preceding business year, the court below's conclusion that the disposition in this case is legitimate is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to interpretation or analogical interpretation of Article

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have any justifiable ground for neglecting the obligation to pay the tax amount for interim prepayment of the corporate tax of this case based on the circumstances in its holding. In so doing, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.