Suwon District Court 2009Guhap4662 ( November 26, 2009)

early 208 Heavy3266 (209.03.09)

The legitimacy of the assertion that interest, redemption fees and property tax should be included in the calculation of losses

Although it is argued that the interest of the loan on the disposition of arrears and the security of real estate was paid before the redemption, it is not possible to recognize it.

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's correction and notification disposition of KRW 28,58,190 of the corporate tax for the business year 2002 against the plaintiff on February 11, 2008 and the notification disposition of change in income amount of KRW 1,487,420,952 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the portion added under Paragraph (2) below. Thus, this Court’s reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

On October 25, 2002, the Plaintiff claimed that: (a) around August 14, 2002, ParkCC purchased the 4,5th of the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff; (b) KRW 50,66,110 in total, and KRW 85,976,510 in total, including the acquisition tax and aggregate land tax on the said 4,5th of August 14, 2002, and KRW 85,976,510 in total, and KRW 37,179,938 in the name of ParkCC (i.e., interest 22,179,938 + interest 15,000,000,0000 + interest 15,000,0000 in total, and KRW 20,000 in deductible expenses for each business year under the name of the said 4,5th of the said 5th of the said 4,5th of the said 4,5th of the said 200.

Therefore, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid interest and redemption fees as alleged by the Plaintiff on August 14, 202 on the 4,5th, property tax, additional tax, acquisition tax, aggregate land tax, etc., and the loan secured by the real estate of this case with its own funds, or that the Plaintiff repaid the amount equivalent to the expenses thereof to ParkCC. In addition, it is not sufficient to recognize that the said loan and the registration of ownership transfer under the name of ParkCC on the 4,5th and fifth floor among the real estate of this case was related to the Plaintiff’s business, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. The Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be just and it shall be dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.