Chuncheon District Court Gangnam Branch Branch 2012Guhap370 ( November 20, 2012)

Early High Court Decision 201J 1749 (No. 23, 2012)

Whether the status of the plaintiff and the non-party liquidation corporation is extinguished, and whether the loan interest is excluded from deductible expenses.

After the completion of liquidation, the status of the plaintiff and the specially related person was extinguished. The provision on the denial of wrongful calculation under the Corporate Tax Act applies on the premise that the person is a specially related person.

Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act

(Chuncheon)Revocation of revocation of the imposition of corporate tax, etc., 2012Nu1407

AAAAAAA corporation

hill of the tax office

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2012Guhap370 Decided November 20, 2012

August 21, 2013

September 25, 2013

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 of the decision of the first instance court was amended by the reduction of claims in the trial as follows.

The Defendant’s imposition disposition of the corporate tax on March 21, 201 against the Plaintiff on March 21, 201 is revoked.

1. Purport of claim

On March 21, 2011, the Defendant revoked the imposition of the corporate tax of the Plaintiff on March 21, 201 and the special rural development tax of the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff reduced the claim in the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why the court should explain in this decision, and the reasons why the court has adopted the part 8, 16 to 9 on the side 8, 16, and 9 on the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, are the same as the reasons stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and they are cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2.Terpared parts

In this case, the acquisition of the Plaintiff’s own stocks as seen earlier is null and void. Accordingly, in the case where the Plaintiff did not recover or delay in collection the outstanding amount paid by the Plaintiff from the person with a special relationship to acquire the above stocks, it shall be a provisional payment unrelated to the business, and as long as BB was dissolved on November 26, 2003 and terminated upon liquidation on February 16, 2004, the Plaintiff and BB ceased to be a person with a special relationship. The provision of the wrongful act and calculation denial under the Corporate Tax Act applies on the premise that the Plaintiff and BB are a person with a special relationship, and the disposition of this case on the premise that BB is a person with a special relationship is illegal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim in this case should be accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed on the ground of its reasoning. However, the decision of the court of first instance is delivered with the decision of the court of first instance since it was modified by the reduction of the plaintiff's claim from the court of first instance as stated in paragraph