Suwon District Court 201Guhap2027 (2012.07.05)

Early High Court Decision 2009Du0087 ( November 22, 2010)

Where a foreign investor files an application for cancellation of registration, the reason for additional collection on foreign investment;

In the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the grounds for the cancellation of registration of a foreign-invested enterprise are limited to "where a foreign investor applies for the cancellation of registration", so it can not be deemed that the case where the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy applies for the cancellation of registration and cancels it ex officio.

2012Nu24384 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax, etc.

AAAAtech Co., Ltd.

The director of the tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap2027 Decided July 5, 2012

December 12, 2012

January 23, 2013

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. On December 2, 2008, the main text of the judgment of the first instance shall be corrected to December 3, 2008, "No. 1, 2008."

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on December 3, 2008 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

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

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

This Court's decision is based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, because the reason for this Court's decision is as follows and the judgment on the defendant's argument is added in the following paragraphs.

The rate of 11 of "Foreign Investment Promotion Act"(hereinafter referred to as the "Foreign Investment Promotion Act") that takes the second 10th (the "Foreign Investment Promotion Act") is the former Act on the Promotion of Foreign Investment (the "Foreign Investment Promotion Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 9374 of January 30, 2009," and the "Foreign Investment Promotion Act").

○ The Restriction of Special Taxation Act(hereinafter referred to as the "Special Taxation Act") is the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act(amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "Stockholm Act").

○ 3: 11. Dec. 2, 2008, the term "B" is changed to December 3, 2008.

Following the past 8th anniversary, the "Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Investment Promotion Act" is the former Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Investment Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21657 of July 30, 2009, hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Investment Promotion Act").

○ The phrase "(related Acts and subordinate statutes omitted)" in the attached Form 1.

2. Additional determination

The Defendant asserts that, even in this court, it constitutes “if the registration was cancelled pursuant to Article 21(3) of the Stockholm Act.” However, Article 121-5(1)1 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act applies when the registration was cancelled pursuant to Article 21(3) of the same Act, and Article 121-5(1)1 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is not cancelled as of January 1, 2010. ② Article 121-5(1)1 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, amended by Act No. 921 of Jan. 1, 2010, provides that “if the registration was cancelled pursuant to Article 121-5(1)1 of the same Act, it would be difficult for the Defendant to use the same as one of the presumed causes, and Article 58 of the Addenda would be applied to the Plaintiff’s first time after the enforcement of this Act.”

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable. The defendant does not accept an appeal filed by the defendant. However, since " December 2, 2008" in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance and " December 3, 2008" were made by mistake, it shall be corrected.