The early 2006Gu2137

Application of temporary tax credit for the taxable year on the date of medical completion, not on the actual date of investment

In a case where an investment (acquisition of business assets) has not been completed as of December 31, 1999 and has been paid an investment in 2000, the amount of the investment made from January 1, 200 shall be deducted from the corporate tax in 2000. Since the obligation to exempt a foreign corporation from the obligation to pay the share price is not only the plaintiff's overseas local corporation but also the plaintiff, the waiver of the share price claim is that the plaintiff's waiver of its obligation to pay

209Guhap2513, revocation of disposition of imposition, including corporate tax

AAA, Inc.

Head of the Port Tax Office and one other

September 23, 2011

November 25, 2011

1. The notice of change in income amount is revoked by the director of the regional tax office of Korea on March 10, 2006, on the date of each disposition in the column of "the particulars of imposition of corporate tax and additional tax" as stated in the separate sheet of "the date of disposition", and the notice of change in income amount as stated in the separate sheet of "the year to which corporate tax and the amount of corporate tax for which the same particulars are to be imposed" as stated in the separate sheet of "the amount of corporate tax and the amount of tax for which the court recognizes."

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant Port Tax Office are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the head of Si/Gun/Gu tax office shall be borne by the Plaintiff; the remainder by the head of Si/Gun/Gu tax office; and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the head of Si/Gun/Gu tax office of ○○○

The "the date of disposition" of Paragraph 2 of this case and the "attached Form 1 Corporate Tax and Additional Tax Imposition" of the head of the tax office of P P P P P P P P P P P P PP made the plaintiff on the date of each disposition at each time, and the "the year of disposition" of each corporate tax and additional tax in the "year of year to which the same particulars are to be reverted" shall be revoked (the purport of the complaint stated that the disposition subject to the disposition of this case is stated as if the disposition of this case was the disposition of imposition after deducting the reported amount by the plaintiff from the amount of tax in the disposition of imposition stated in Paragraph 1 of this case, but this is an error and it is the disposition of imposition stated in Paragraph 1 of this case) which exceeds the amount of tax stated in the "reasonable tax amount"

The objectives of the reasons are as follows:

1. The whole details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the production and sales of steel, steel, and pressure-free smoke, and has a subsidiary in which the Plaintiff invested 100% in the United States, Australia, Canada, etc.

B. The Plaintiff reported corporate tax for the year 200 through 2004 to the head of the Defendant Port Tax Office (hereinafter referred to as the “head of Defendant Port Tax Office”) as follows. On March 10, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a revised return on the tax base and tax amount originally reported before the head of Defendant Port Tax Office issues a revised disposition as follows:

(c) The Director of the Regional Tax Office(hereinafter referred to as the "Director of the 205 Tax Tribunal") has conducted regular tax investigation for the plaintiff. The Director of the 205 Tax Tribunal denied the plaintiff's tax return in accordance with the above tax investigation, calculated the corporate tax and additional tax for the year 200 through 204 as follows: on March 10, 206, the corporate tax and additional tax for the 200 years were increased to 184,077, 185, 904; on 772.637, 201, the corporate tax and additional tax for the 2001 business year were reduced to 7162, 923, 341, 2000, 2400, 202, 15, 1715, 206, 204, 2927, 306, 296, 2015, 296, 209.

E. On July 2, 2009, the chief of the Defendant’s book issued a disposition to correct and impose corporate tax and additional tax on the Plaintiff on July 2, 2009, as indicated in [Attachment 3-1 to 3-5]. The result is the reduction and increase of corporate tax and additional tax for the year 200 and 2004, as described in the “the year to which the corporate tax and additional tax are imposed,” as described in the “the year to which the corporate tax and additional tax are reverted,” and each corporate tax and additional tax for the year 200, 2002 and 203 have been reduced compared to the initial disposition. The subject of the lawsuit in this case is the disposition to impose corporate tax and additional tax for the year 200, 204, which were reduced from the initial disposition, and the disposition to impose corporate tax and additional tax for the year 201, 2002 and 203, which were increased as of July 2, 2009.

F. On September 9, 2009, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on September 9, 2009 without filing a separate request for a tax trial on the increased disposition more than the initial disposition (as seen earlier, the Plaintiff had already gone through a prior trial procedure on the initial disposition, and the Plaintiff’s ground for illegality in the instant lawsuit is common to that of the initial disposition, and thus, may file the instant lawsuit without undergoing a prior trial procedure on the increased disposition. See Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1329, Aug. 14, 1992).

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 5-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The issues of the instant case and the classification of relevant tax amounts

The issues of this case are divided as follows on the basis of the grounds for illegality in the initial disposition and the disposition of increase or decrease as alleged by the plaintiff. The amount of tax classified by year and issue as stated in the table of classification of income and the annual amount of tax classified by issue as stated in the table of classification of income in the attached Table 4, but there is no dispute between the parties, but the classification of tax amount listed in the column 4 in the above table and No. 5 in the dispute column is the tax amount claimed by the plaintiff, and the defendant disputes the classification of tax

A. The plaintiff asserts that it is unlawful for the plaintiff to not deduct the temporary investment amount invested by the plaintiff in the year 1999 from the corporate tax for the year 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "index 1"). In citing the plaintiff's claim, the amount of tax imposed on "0........." (b) the plaintiff purchased Canadian coal from the US DD. (hereinafter referred to as "DDD") at a higher price than the market price and distribute profits to CCC which is a specially related party. In citing the plaintiff's claim, the tax amount imposed on "0.................." the plaintiff's purchase of Canadian coal from the US DD. (hereinafter referred to as "DDD") and the amount of tax imposed on "1............., the amount of tax imposed each year's 1.......

C. The Plaintiff asserts that it is unlawful to recognize that the Plaintiff’s disposal of the purchase price claim of the U.S. EE. (hereinafter referred to as “EEE”) issued by CCC, a person with a special relationship, was made up of the sales price claim of the U.S. EE. (hereinafter referred to as “DD”), and distributed profits to CCC (hereinafter referred to as “CCC No. 3”), and that disposal of the pertinent 3-related earnings as other income of CCC is illegal (hereinafter referred to as “Dispute No. 12”). In accepting the Plaintiff’s assertion, the disposition of changing the amount of income on the amount of income stated in the “Annual No. 12” column of “The No. 4” and “The Table of Income Classification” should be revoked.

D. The plaintiff asserts that it is unlawful that the commencement date of the supply of each power of the gasers, which is part of the port newly established by the plaintiff, and of the lightyang LNG power plants, did not recognize the commencement date of the supply of each power of the gasers as the depreciation date of each of the gasers (hereinafter referred to as "market 4"), and that, when citing the plaintiff's assertion, the tax amount listed in the attached Table 4's tax amount by the point of dispute and the yearly 1'point 4' of the income classification table, should be revoked since it is unlawful

E. The Plaintiff asserts that it is unlawful to recognize that the Plaintiff purchased Australia coal from FFF. (hereinafter “FFF”), a subsidiary company, at a higher price than the arm’s length price, in purchasing Australia coal (hereinafter “instant dispute 6”). In citing the Plaintiff’s assertion, the amount of tax assessed as indicated in the [Attachment 4] tax amount by dispute issue, and the annual amount of tax assessed as indicated in the [Attachment 1] No. 6” column of the income classification table 1, should be revoked as it is unlawful.

.

f. The plaintiff asserts that it is unlawful to recognize that the plaintiff purchased Canadian coal from Canadian's subsidiaries at a higher price than the arm's length price (hereinafter referred to as 7's length price) in purchasing Canadian coal from Canadian's subsidiaries (hereinafter referred to as 'G 1'). The plaintiff asserts that it is unlawful to recognize the difference between the plaintiff's annual income tax base and the 9' annual income tax base for each business year in the annexed Table 4' and the 7' table of income classification as unlawful, since the plaintiff's annual tax base for the 9's annual income base for the 9'HH bank's tax amount should be revoked in the case of 9'H bank's disposal of 1'HH bank' (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff's annual income base for the 9's income base for the 9'H bank's disposal of part of the amount deposited in 1'H bank's foreign related party' should be revoked in accordance with the plaintiff's annual income base for the 9's income issue.

A. Relevant circumstances of the first disposition

(1) The Plaintiff’s business year is from January 1 to December 31 of each year. The Plaintiff invested a total of KRW 339,826,896, and KRW 551 (hereinafter “the first interim investment”) in 199 to acquire the business assets, and completed the investment (acquisition of business assets) in 200. On March 200, the Plaintiff reported corporate tax for the year 200 to the head of Seocho-gu to reduce the amount of tax belonging to the Special Tax Treatment Control Act (hereinafter “All Special Tax Treatment Control Act”) Article 26(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7003, Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter “the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act”) and rejected the interim tax credit of KRW 301,50,000 after deducting the amount of tax credit from the initial tax credit of KRW 230,199; hereinafter “the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act”).

(3) The Plaintiff filed a trial on the initial disposition with the ground that it was unlawful that the Plaintiff did not deduct the instant temporary investment amount from the corporate tax reverted to year 2000. The Tax Tribunal dismissed the initial disposition, and the Defendant Seo-gu did not deduct the instant temporary investment amount from the corporate tax reverted to year 2000. The Defendant Seo-gu rendered a re-audit that part of the amount of the temporary investment amount constitutes enhancement of productivity facility tax under the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, a tax credit for specific non-investment, and a tax credit by re-audit. The Defendant Seo-gu confirmed the amount meeting the requirements for tax credit under Articles 24, 25, and 25-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act among the instant temporary investment amount according to the said decision and reflected it in the revised disposition for reduction on July 2, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “disposition 1 imposition disposition that rejected the deduction of the instant 1 temporary investment amount as the remaining part after the correction”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 6-1 and Eul evidence 6-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Parties’ assertion

(1) The argument of the Defendant’s book is as follows.

① In applying the amended provisions of Article 23(1) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1734, Dec. 31, 1999; Presidential Decree No. 1664, Dec. 31, 1999; Presidential Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17034, Dec. 1, 2000; Presidential Decree No. 1664, Dec. 1, 2000; Presidential Decree No. 1664, Dec. 31, 1999; Presidential Decree No. 16655, Feb. 199; Presidential Decree No. 1664, Feb. 29, 200; Presidential Decree No. 16685, Feb. 19, 200).

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows.

① According to Article 23(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the 1999 temporary investment amount at issue may be deducted from corporate tax in 2000, which is the business year in which the investment is completed. Since the supplementary provisions of the Act have the effect as to the supplementary provisions of this Rule, it cannot be interpreted contrary to Article 23(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act in interpreting Article 2 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and the time limit for temporary investment credit has been extended every year in consideration of the history of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act") and the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act. ② Under Articles 23(4) and 4(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the 1 temporary investment amount at issue may also be deducted from corporate tax in 200.

(c) relevant statutes;

Attached 5 Dispute 1 is as described in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes." and D.

(1) Whether the issue 1 temporary investment amount can be deducted from the corporate tax in 2000

(A) According to Article 26(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 23(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the company engaged in the manufacturing business, etc. deducts the amount calculated by multiplying the amount invested until December 31, 199 to acquire the business assets by 10/10 from the corporate tax for the taxable year prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and "the taxable year prescribed by the Presidential Decree" refers to the tax amount on which the investment is made in accordance with Article 23(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, or the taxation on which the relevant investment is completed. The issue is where the investment (acquisition of commercial assets) is not completed as of December 31, 199, whether the amount of temporary investment made until December 31, 199 should be deducted from the corporate tax under the corporate tax under the year 199 (the defendant's assertion).

(B) In light of the following, the amount of investment made until December 31, 1999 should be deducted from corporate tax in 1999 and the amount of investment made from January 1, 200 should be deducted from corporate tax in 200 because the investment made on December 31, 199 as of December 31, 199 (acquisition of business assets) was not completed. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is groundless.

① In light of the principle of no taxation without law, or the requirements for tax exemption or tax exemption, the interpretation of tax laws shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, barring any special circumstance, and it shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu20090, Mar. 27, 1998; 95Nu7857, Sept. 26, 1995); and the Addenda is originally incidental to this rule to its enforcement date, transitional measures, and other matters concerning the amendment, repeal, etc. of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and thus, cannot exist independently from this rule, and has the incidental and supplementary effect to such rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu500, Oct. 22, 1985).

② The Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that an investment shall be granted a tax credit for the amount invested until December 31, 199. Article 23(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the corporate tax to be deducted shall be for the taxable year in which the investment is completed. Article 23(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that an investment shall be for the first 0-year period in which the investment is completed. Article 23(1) of the Addenda provides that an investment shall be for the first 10-year period in which the investment is completed. Article 23(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that an investment shall be for the first 10-year period in which the investment is completed. Article 23(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that an investment shall be for the first 9-year period in which the investment is completed.

"③ 임시투자세액공제 제도의 연혁은 별지 6 '임시투자세액공제제도 연혁'의 기재와 같다. 임시투자세액공제는 일시적인 경기부양을 목적으로 기업의 신규투자를 촉진하는 조세감면제도로서 1982. 1. 1. 구 조감법에 최초로 도입되었는데, 단기간 시행된 후 종료되는 것이 원칙이므로 공제할 투자액의 지출종료시점을 6개월을 단위로 연장하여 왔고, 납세자에게 세액공제 혜택을 조기에 줄 필요가 있었으므로 실제로는 투자(사업용자 산의 취득)가 완료되지 않았더라도 투자가 완료된 것으로 의제하는 부칙 규정을 두었다. 이러한 부칙 규정으로 인하여 비록 구 조감법 시행령이 매년 개정되면서 세액공제 가 허용되는 투자액의 지출종료시점이 연장되는 경우에도 그 연장전에 지출된 투자액 이 공제되는 과세연도는 변경되지 않았다. 예들 들어 구 조감법 시행령 제57조의2(1991. 12. 31. 대통령령 제13545호로 개정된 것)는 제1항에서 '1992. 1. 1.부터 1992. 6. 30.까지 투자한 금액에 대하여 법인세에서 공제한다'고 규정하고 제2항에서 '투자가 2개 이상의 과세연도에 걸쳐서 이루어진 경우 (예를 들어 1. 1.부터 6. 30.까지 투자금을 지출하였는데 과세연도가 매년 4. 1.부터 다 음해 3. 31.까지라면 2개의 과세연도에 걸쳐 지출한 경우가 된다)에는 당해 투자가 완료된 과세연도'의 법인세에서 공제할 수 있다고 규정하였는데, 위 제57조의2 제1항의 11992. 1. 1.부터 1992. 6. 30.까지 투자한 금액'이라는 규정은 그 후에 '1992. 1. 1.부터 1992. 12. 31.까지 투자한 금액'(1992.6.30.대통령령 제13668호로 개정된 것), '1992. 1. 1.부터 1993. 6. 30.까지 투자한 금액'(1992. 12. 31.대통령령 제13804호로 개정된 것), '1992. 1. 1.부터 1993. 12. 31.까지 투자한 금액'(1993. 5. 27. 제13897호로 개정된 것)으로 개정됨으로써 6개월 단위로 그 지출종료시점이 연장되었다. 이에 따라 '1992. 1. 1.부터 1992. 6. 30.까지 투자한 금액'의 공제시기를 정한 구 조감법시행령 부칙(제 13545호, 1991. 12. 31.) 제8조 제1항은 ㉮ 당초1992.6.30.현재 투자가 완료되지 아니한 경우에는 1992. 6. 30.까지 투자한 분에 대하여 1992. 6. 30.에 투자가 완료된 것으로 본다였으나，㉯ '1992. 12. 31. 현재 투자가 완료되지 아니한 경우에는 1992. 12. 31.까지 투자한 분에 대하여 1992. 12. 31.에 투자가 완료된 것으로 본다'로 개정되었고(1992. 6. 30. 대통령령 제13668호로 개정된 것), ㉰ '1993. 6. 30. 현재 투자가 완 료되지 아니한 경우에는 1993. 6. 30.까지 투자한 분에 대하여 1993. 6. 30.에 투자가 완료된 것으로 본다'로 개정되었다(1992. 12. 31.대통령령 제13804호로 개정된 것).", "위 부칙 ㉮㉯㉰ 규정들에 의하면, 과세관청이 어느 법인에 대하여1992.6.30.이 속하는 과세연도'의 법인세를 경정부과할 경우에1992.6.30.까지 투자한 분'을 어느 과세연도에서 공제할 것인가가 문제되는데, 만일1992.6.30.현재 투자가 완료되지 아니하였으면' 위 부칙 ㉮ 규정을 적용하여 '투자가 완료된 것으로 보는 1992. 6. 30.이 속하는 과세연도'의 법인세에서 공제하여야 하고, 위 부칙 맨 또는 땐 규정을 적용하여 투자가 완료된 것으로 보는 '1992. 12. 31.이 속하는 과세연도' 또는 '1993. 6. 30.이 속 하는 과세연도'의 법인세에서 공제할 수는 없었다고 해석된다(구 조감법 시행령 제57조 의2 제1항의 개정으로 투자금지출의 종료시점이 '1992. 6. 30.까지' 또는 '1993. 6. 30. 까지'로 연장되었더라도 그 종료시점의 연장은 각 개정시행령 공포일부터 시행되었으므로, 개정전 시행령 제57조의2 제1항이 정한 '1992. 6. 30.까지 투자한 금액'에 대하여는 위 부칙 ㉮ 규정만 적용되고 위 부칙 ㉯㉰ 규정은 적용될 수 없었기 때문이다).", "④ 2000조세특례제한법시행령 제23조 1항 부칙 제7조에 의하면, '2000. 1. 1.부터 2000. 6. 30.까지'의 투자금액은 2000조세특례제한법시행령 제4조 제3항의 규정을 준용하여 계산한 금액 으로 하여야 하는데, 2000조세특례제한법시행령 제4조 제3항에 의하면, '투자금액'은 '총투자금액에 법인세법 시행령 제69조 제2항의 규정에 의한 작업진행률에 의하여 계산한 금액' (제1호)과 '당해 과세연도까지 실제로 지출한 금액'(제2호) 중 큰 금액으로부터 '당해 과세연도 이전에 투자세액공제를 받은 투자금액과 투자세액공제제도를 적용받기 전에 투자한 분에 대하여 제1호의 규정을 준용하여 계산한 금액을 합한 금액'(제3호)을 차감한 금액으로 한다. 그러나 2000조세특례제한법시행령 제4조 제3항을 '적용'하는 것이 아니라 '준용' 한다고 규정되어 있으므로, '2000. 1. 1.부터 2000. 6. 30.까지'의 투자금액을 산출하는 과정에서 '당해 과세연도 이전에 투자세액공제를 받을 수 있었으나 납세자가 공제신청 을 하지 않음으로 인하여 세액공제를 받지 못한 투자금액'은 '당해 과세연도 이전에 투자세액공제를 받은 투자금액'(2000조세특례제한법시행령 제4조 제3항 제3호)으로 보아 이를 차감하여야 한다.",(2) 가산세의 부과가 위법한지

(A) In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under the tax law is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the individual tax law in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, and it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be aware of such obligations, and thus, it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be reasonably present or to expect the performance of such obligations to be carried out by the party concerned (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du4089, Apr. 15, 2005; 2003Du4089, Apr. 15, 2005). However, the taxpayer’s intentional act and negligence is not considered, but does not constitute justifiable grounds that do not cause the taxpayer’s breach of duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du10545, Apr. 26, 2007; 207Du3177, Apr. 23, 2009).

(B) Welves, and (i) the Plaintiff reported corporate tax for the year 199 and the year 2000, '199.

The plaintiff's 12. 31. Investment Co., Ltd. was deducted from corporate tax in 2000, not from 1999. ; (2) the plaintiff's corporate tax declaration amount in 2000 is due to law or misunderstanding; (3) the plaintiff's ability to prevent misunderstanding of legal principles is sufficient; and (4) the due tax payment due to the plaintiff's erroneous tax credit was delayed for 1 year; and (4) the book "Guidelines Guidelines for Corporate Tax Return, Tax Adjustment and Report" that the National Tax Service reported for 200 years to 199. 1. 1. 2. 200, the plaintiff's tax credit amount for 200 years can be viewed as 10%, and the plaintiff's tax credit amount for 29 years can be viewed as 90%, and the other tax credit amount for 20 years can be interpreted as 9. 1. 3 years and the other tax credit amount for 200 years or more. 3 years. 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .

Therefore, the first disposition is legitimate.

4. Issue 2 tax disposition, disposition of income (transaction purchasing capital from DD) at issue 11, and disposition of income at issue 3rd (transaction waived after acquisition of EEE stock price claim as compensation in kind)

(a)the basic facts;

(1) The JJJ is a company established by the Plaintiff by investing 100% in the United States, and KRK (hereinafter referred to as 'KK') is a U.S. subsidiary (the second-tier subsidiary of the Plaintiff) in which the JJ has invested 100%.

(2) In order to secure coal in a stable manner, the Plaintiff is a U.S. Qnoma coal mine located in Qnomania.

개발하려고 1979. KKKKK을 통해 Q노마 탄광 개발회사인 EEE를 설립하였는데 QQQQQQ은 EEE 발행주식의 100%를 소유하였다.

"(3) KKKKK은 자회사인 EEE의 적자가 계속 늘어나자 1988. 5. 31. 미국의 석탄중 개회사인 DDDD와 사이에, KKKKK은 그 소유 EEE 발행주식(이하 '쟁점3EEE주식'이라 한다)의 100%를 DDDD에게 미화 4，900만 달러에 이전하고 DDDD는 그 대금(이하 '쟁점3EEE주식대금!이라 한다)을 QQQQQQ의 모회사인 CCCCC에게 20년간 분할하여 지급하 기로(이하 CCCCC이 DDDD에 대하여 가지는 위 주식대금 채권을 '쟁점3EEE주식대금채권'이라 한다) 하는 주식매도계약을 체결하고(갑 제7호증), 그 무렵 EEE 발행주식의 100%를 DDDD에게 인도하였다. 원고는 같은 날 DDDD와 사이에, 원고가 DDDD로부터 1988.부터 1997.까지는 매년 75만 내지 125만 톤의 미국탄과 49만톤의 캐나다탄을 구 입하고, 1998.부터 2007.까지는 매년 125만 톤의 미국탄과 45만톤의 캐나다탄(이하 '쟁점2캐나다탄'이라 한다)을 구입하기로 하는 장기(20년) 석탄공급계약을 체결하였는데, 위 계약에 의하면 '쟁점2캐나다탄'의 가격은 일본철강업체가 LLLLL(이하 'LLLLL'이라 한다LLLLL은 2003.부터 2008.까지 'MMMMMM'을 지배하였는데 이하 'MMMMMM'도 편의상 'LLLLL'이 라 부른다)로부터 구입하는 석탄의 가격으로 정하기로 하고, 쌍방이 가격을 합의하지 못하는 경우 중재에 의하여 정하기로 약정하였다(갑 제11호증의 1, 2).",(4) 원고는 위 계약에 따라 DDDD로부터 미국탄과 캐나다탄을 구입하던 중 철강생산 기술의 발달로 고가의 미국탄 대신 저가의 호주탄을 사용하는 것이 가능하게 되자 2001. 더 이상 미국탄을 구입하지 않기 위하여 DDDD와 협상을 시작하였다. 위 협상 도 중 DDDD가 쟁점3EEE주식대금 중 3차 분할금을 채권자인 CCCCC에게 지급하지 않자, QQQQQQ은 위 주식매도계약을 해지하였다. 그 후 QQQQQQ은 DDDD를 상대로 마국법원에 민사소송을 제기하였고, DDDD는 QQQQQQ을 상대로 반소를 제기하면서 원고와 CCCCC을 피고로 추가하였다. 위 소송 도중인 2003. 2. 7. 원고 및 CCCCC, QQQQQQ과 DDDD사이에 합의(이하 '위 소송종결 합의'라 한다)가 성립되었다. CCCCC, QQQQQQ과 DDDD사이의 합의의 요지는, DDDD는 원고, CCCCC 또는 QQQQQQ에 대하여 쟁점 3 EEE 주식대금의 지급채무를 면한다는 것으로 구체적인 내 용은 다음과 같다. CCCCC, QQQQQQ과 DDDD사이의 합의서(갑 제51호증) 제5조 : QQQQQQ은 본 건 어읍(갑 제10호증, DDDD가 쟁점3EEE주식대금의 지급을 위해 CCCCC에게 작성교부한 것이다)을 CCCCC에게 양도하였고, CCCCC은 원고에게 이를 다시 양도하였으며, 원고는 본건 어음의 소유자이다. CCCCC - JJJJJJ은 본건 어음상의 DDDD의 채무 이행에 대해 어떠한 추가 권리도 갖지 아니하며, DDDD는 원고, QQQQQQ 또는 CCCCC에 어떠한 추가의무도 부담하지 아니한다. 원고와 DDDD 사이의 합의의 요지는 ① 원고는 DDDD로부터 캐나다탄을 구입할 의무 는 그대로 유지하되, 미국탄을 구입할 의무를 면하고 ② DDDD는 EEE 주식대금의 지급 채무를 면한다는 것으로 구체적인 내용은 다음과 같다. 원고와 DDDD사이의 합의서(갑 제20호증) 제6조 : 원고는 본 계약 체결에 따라 NNNNN.(DDDD의 스위스 자회사)에게 원고가 미국탄 판매계약에 따라 소유 하는 일체의 권리, 소유권 및 이권을 양도한다(단, NNNNN.가 이러한 양도 와 동시에 원고를 미국탄 판매계약상의 일체의 책임으로부터 면제하는 것을 조건 으로 한다). 이러한 양도에 따라, 원고는 미국탄 판매계약에 따른 어떠한 추가 의 무도 부담하지 아니 하며 , CCCCC이 나 QQQQQQ은 본 건 어 음(갑 제 10호증) 상의 DDDD의 채무 이행에 대한 어떠한 추가 권리도 가지지 아니한다.

(5) 위 합의 의 이행으로, QQQQQQ은 2003. 2. 12. CCCCC에 게 쟁 점 3EEE주식 대 금채권을 양도하였고(갑 제52호증의 1), CCCCC은 2003. 2. 12. 원고에게 위 채권을 현물 배당 형식으로 양도하였으며(갑 제52호증의 2), 원고는 2003. 쟁점3EEE주식대금채권을 DDDD의 스위스 자회사인 NNNNN.에게 양도하고, 이를 원고의 대손상각비로 계상하였다가 법인세를 신고하면서 위 대손상각비를 부인함으로써 이에 대한 법인세를 신고납부하였다.

[Based on Recognition] A’s without dispute, Gap’s evidence 5 through 24, Gap’s evidence 29 through 30-2, Gap’s evidence 51 through 53, Gap’s evidence 58, 59, Eul’s evidence 7, 8, 9, Eul’s evidence 17 through 24, Eul’s partial testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(b) Details of disposition;

(1) Disposition 2 of this issue; disposition 11 of this issue

Defendant SDR purchased 3E stocks without any asset value from DD to CCC, the Plaintiff’s subsidiary company, on condition of paying them in installments for 20 years. The Plaintiff agreed to purchase coal from DD for 20 years at a price higher than the market price. If the Plaintiff purchased Canadian from DD from DoL to 2004, DDD would be able to purchase coal at a uniform price with the coal price purchased from LLL, but it was possible to purchase Canadian at a price higher than the price purchased from DoLLL at a price higher than 6 U.S. dollars (one ton US dollars). The Plaintiff was determined to have distributed Canadian profits equivalent to the difference in the above two transaction prices by purchasing Canadian from DoL from DoL to DaCC, a related party, by applying Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act’s wrongful calculation method, and imposed corporate tax for 20 years to the Plaintiff by denying the difference between the above prices and imposing corporate tax for 20 years or less (200 years).

) In its subsequent disposition, the head of the defendant administration considers that the plaintiff's earnings were reverted to CCC which is a person with a special relationship (hereinafter referred to as "income disposition" in 2000, 877, 286, 268, 2001, 2,941, 103, 738, 4,032, 374, 192, 2,339, 3239, 348, 4, 339, 3804, and 4,039, 380, and 263) on March 10, 206 (hereinafter referred to as "income disposition"), and the amount of income is the amount stated in the column of "annual dispute" in attached Table 4, and the "annual dispute" in attached Table 11.

(2) Disposition of income at issue 3

In return for the Plaintiff’s exemption from the obligation to purchase U.S. carbon from DD, the head of the Defendant agreed to exempt the CCC DaD from the obligation to pay the EE stock price. At that time, the key 3E stock price claim was no value. However, the Plaintiff, despite the fact that the Plaintiff renounced the 3E stock price claim from CCC for consideration (in-kind distribution) and distributed profits equivalent to the amount of the claim to CCC, a related party, by giving up the 3E stock price claim for consideration, was determined to have been distributed profits equivalent to the amount of the claim. Based on Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act Article 52 of the Act, the Plaintiff was industrialized in 19,988,976, and 72 for the year 2003 by applying the provisions on the wrongful calculation panel under Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act, and notified the change in the amount of income by deeming the above gross income

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 5-2, Eul evidence 61 and 62, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Whether the instant 2 disposition and the instant 11 disposition of income are unlawful

(1) The parties' assertion

(A) The Defendants’ assertion is as follows.

① 석탄의 고가 구입을 부인함으로 인한 법인세부과 제척기간은 원고가 실제로 석탄을 구입한 각 연도별로 기산된다・ ② QQQQQQ은 자회사인 EEE를 통하여 미국 Q노마 탄광에 투자하여 수백억 원의 손실이 발생하였고 탄광폐쇄에 소요되는 비용의 과다로 탄광폐쇄조차 불가능한 상황에서 경제적 가치가 전혀 없는 쟁점3EEE주식을 DDDD에게 매도하였고(QQQQQQ의 모회사인 CCCCC이 20년간 대금을 분할지급받는 조건임), 위 매매는 DDDD에게 불리한 것이지만 DDDD는 원고에게 석탄을 고가로 20년간 공급하기로 하였으므로, 결국 원고는 DDDD를 통하여 자회사인 CCCCC에게 이익을 분여한 것이다. ③ 원고가 적용한 법률은 ㉮ 쟁점 2 부과처분 중 2000년도 내지 2002년 도 귀속 법인세에 대하여는 법인세법 제52조, 구 법인세법 시행령 제88조 제1항 제1 호 ・ 제9호, 제2항 ㉯ 쟁점 2 부과처분 중 2003년도 및 2004년도 귀속 법인세에 대하여는 구 국제조세조정에관한법률(이하 모든 '국제조세조정에관한법률'을 줄여서 '국제조세조정에관한법률'이라 한다) 제3조, 구 국제조세조정에관한법률 시행령 제3조의2 제1호, 구 법인세법 시행령 제88조 제1항 제1호, 제9호, 제2항 ㉰ 쟁점 11 소득처분에 대하여는 법인세법 제67조, 구 법인세법 시행령 제106조 1항이다.

(B) The Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows.

① The Plaintiff was supplied with capital or tea according to the long-term coal supply contract between DD and DD as of May 31, 198. As such, when counting from the above contract date, the detailed period of exclusion was already set at the time of the second disposition. ② Since the price of Canada purchased from DD is the same as the market price, the said transaction does not fall under the provision that is a wrongful calculation register under Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act or Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Adjustment of International Taxes Act (Scope of Application of Wrongful Calculation). ③ The transaction does not fall under the “transaction made through a person other than a specially related person under Article 8(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.”

(2) Relevant statutes

Attached 7 is as described in the "Related Acts and subordinate statutes" in Annex 2, 3, and 11.

(3) Determination

(A) Determination as to the plaintiff's above (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

The Plaintiff entered into a contract with DDR on May 31, 198 to be supplied with coal for the next twenty (20) years. However, the contract is merely a basic contract, and the specific liability for the amount of coal should be established only when individual contracts are concluded to specifically determine the amount of coal, price, time of supply, etc. each year pursuant to the above basic contract. Thus, the price shall be deemed as losses for the business year in which the date the amount is fixed. If counting from the business year in which the amount of the large amount is determined, the fact that the period of exclusion has not elapsed since there was no dispute between the parties, the Plaintiff’s principal head is without merit.

(B) On the plaintiff's above (1) ② (3) (the defendant's above (1) ②(3)

1) According to Article 3 of the former Adjustment of International Taxes Act (amended by Act No. 6779 of Dec. 18, 2002) and Article 3(1) of the current Adjustment of International Taxes Act (amended by Act No. 6779 of Dec. 18, 2002), the Adjustment of International Taxes Act shall take precedence over other Acts which provide for national taxes and local taxes, and Article 4 (2) of the former Adjustment of International Taxes Act (amended by Act No. 6779 of Dec. 18, 2002) or Article 4(1) of the former Adjustment of International Taxes Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 6779 of Dec. 18, 2002) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9266 of Dec. 26, 2008), the tax authorities may determine or rectify the standard amount of taxation and tax purchased by a resident at an arm’s length price when one of the parties to an international trade falls short of or exceeds the arm’s length price.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the above provisions, the tax authorities may determine or rectify the tax base and tax amount of a resident based on the market price by applying Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act until December 31, 2002, and Article 3(2) of the Adjustment of International Taxes Act (amended by Act No. 6779, Dec. 18, 2002) effective from January 1, 2003, Article 4(1) of the former Adjustment of International Taxes Act (amended by Act No. 6779, Dec. 18, 2002) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2013, Dec. 26, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 20154, Dec. 26, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 20130, Jul. 21, 2007>

3) The portion of the trade in Canada from January 1, 200 to December 31, 2002

"피고들은, 원고가 비특수관계자인 DDDD를 통하여 특수관계자인 CCCCC과 거래하였 으므로 구 법인세법 시행령(2005.2.19.대통령령 제18706호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제 88조(부당행위계산의 유형 등) 제2항의 '특수관계자간의 거래(특수관계자외의 자를 통 하여 이루어진 거래를 포함한다)'에 해당하고, 원고가 DDDD로부터 구입한 캐나다탄의 가격과 시가와의 차액이 원고의 특수관계자인 CCCCC에게 지급되도록 함으로써 CCCCC에게 이익을 분여하였다[구 법인세법 시행령(2005.2.19.대통령령 제18706호 로 개정되기 전의 것) 제88조 제1항 제1호 및 제9호]고 주장한다. 살피건대, DDDD가 원고의 자회사인 QQQQQQ과 사이에 QQQQQQ로부터 쟁점3EEE주식을 매수(대금은 CCCCC에게 지급하기로 정함)하는 계약을 체결함과 동시에 원고와 사이에 원고에게 석탄을 장기간 공급하는 계약을 체결한 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같지만, ① 위 계약들의 내용은 원고가 일방적으로 정한 것이 아니라 원고가 DDDD와 협상을 거쳐 정한 점，② 위 계약 당시 쟁점3EEE주식대금은 확정되었으나 20년간 분할공급받을 석탄의 가격은 향후 공급시마다 별도로 합의하되 쌍방이 가격을 합의하지 못하는 경우 중재에 의하여 정하기로 약정한 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 원고가 특수관계 없는 DDDD과 거래한 것을 가지고 원고가 특수관계자인 CCCCC과 거래한 것으로 볼 수는 없으므로, 피고들이 구 법인세법 시행령(2005.2.19.대통령령 제18706호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제88조 제2항을 적용한 것은 위법하다. 또한 원고가 DDDD로부터 구입한 캐나다탄의 가격이 시가를 초과하였다는 점은 피고 들이 입증하여야 하는데(대법원 2005. 5. 12. 선고 2003두15287 판결 등 참조),① 원고가 2003.에 LLLLL으로부터 구입한 캐나다탄의 가격이 원고가 같은 연도에 DDDD로 부터 구입한 캐나다탄의 가격보다 톤당 미화 6달러 낮았다 하더라도, 원고가 LLLLL으 로부터 석탄을 구입한 시기(2003.) 및 구입물량은 원고가 DDDD로부터 석탄을 구입한 시기(2000.1. 1.부터 2002. 12. 31.까지) 및 구입물량과 다르므로 두 석탄의 가격이 다를 수 있는 점，② 석탄중개회사인 DDDD는 제철회사인 원고에 비하여 가격협상력이 우세하므로 때 DDDD가 LLLLL으로부터의 구입한 석탄의 가격이 원고가 DDDD로부터 구입한 석탄의 가격보다 낮을 수 있는 점, 그 밖에 석탄의 시가를 입증할 증거가 부족한 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 원고가 DDDD로부터 구입한 석탄의 가격이 시가를 초과하였음이 입증되었다고 할 수 없다. 가사 원고가 DDDD로부터 구입한 석탄의 가격이 시가를 초과하였다고 하더라도, 쟁점 3EEE주식이 아무런 경제적 가치가 없었다거나(EEE가 적자 상태였다는 것만으로 EEE 주식의 자산가치가 없다고 인정할 수 없다) 쟁점3EEE주식대금이 EEE의 순자산가치를 초과하였음을 인정할 만한 증거가 부족하므로, DDDD가 쟁점3EEE주식대금을 CCCCC에게 지급함으로써 원고로부터 지급받은 석탄대금 중 일부(시가와의 차액)를 CCCCC에게 전달하였다고 볼 수도 없다. 따라서 원고가 2000. 1. 1.부터 2002. 12. 31.까지 DDDD로 부터의 석탄을 구입한 거래를 가지고 원고가 CCCCC에게 '이익을 분여'한 것으로 인정한 것은 위법하므로, 원고의 주장은 이유 있다.",4) 2003.1. 1.부터 2004. 12. 31.까지의 캐나다탄 구입 거래 부분

The defendants asserted that Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 88 (1) 1 and 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18706 of Feb. 19, 2005) apply to transactions for this period. However, as seen above, it may be possible to determine or correct the resident's tax base and tax amount on the ground of "pro rata stock purchase" by applying Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act until December 31, 2002. However, since Article 3 (2) of the Adjustment of International Taxes Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 6779 of Dec. 18, 2002) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Adjustment of International Taxes Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19650 of Aug. 24, 2006), the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's act of purchasing the assets from a specially related party to the Seoul High Court constitutes "D 2, 2002." The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(4) Sub-determination

Therefore, since the 2nd disposition is illegal, the amount of tax stated in the column 2 of the "tax amount by issue" and the "mark of classification of income by issue" should be reduced in all. In addition, the 11th disposition of income at issue is also illegal and should be revoked.

D. Whether the disposition of income at issue 3 is illegal

(1) The parties' assertion

(A) The argument by the head of the Defendant is as follows.

① The Plaintiff distributed profits to CCC, a person with a special relationship. As such, Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 88(1)3 and 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 106(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act; and Article 106(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

(B) The Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows.

① According to Article 3(2) of the former Adjustment of International Taxes Act, which was enforced at the time when the Plaintiff waived the key claim for the 3EEEE share price, the provision on wrongful calculation under Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act cannot be applied to the waiver. ② Since the waiver of the 3E share price claim is beneficial to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not allocate profits to the CCC.

(2) Relevant statutes

Attached 7 is as described in the "Related Acts and subordinate statutes" in Annex 2, 3, and 11.

(3) Determination

(A) Determination as to the plaintiff's above (1) (1) (2) (1) (1)

Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act shall not apply to the act of 'profit-sharing' that does not fall under a certain transaction (such as gift of assets) under Article 3-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Adjustment of International Taxes Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19650, Aug. 24, 2006) from January 1, 2003, the time when the Plaintiff acquired EE-stock payment claim in kind and waived it. Thus, the argument by the head of the defendant office is without merit, and the plaintiff's argument is with merit.

(B) Judgment as to the plaintiff's above (1) and (2) (the defendant's claim (1) and (2)

In a broad sense, ‘profit sharing' as alleged by the head of the Defendant’s headquarters is included in ‘donation of assets as stipulated by Article 3-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Adjustment of International Taxes Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19650, Aug. 24, 2006)’. However, in light of the following points, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have distributed profits to the CCC. Thus, the argument by the head of the Defendant’s office is without merit, and the Plaintiff’s assertion

① 위 소송종결 합의의 요지는, 원고는 DDDD로부터 미국탄을 구입할 의무를 면하는 대신, DDDD는 원고, CCCCC 및 QQQQQQ에 대하여 쟁점3EEE주식대금의 지급채무를 면한다는 것이고, 그 후 원고는 자회사인 CCCCC으로부터 쟁점3EEE주식대금채권을 현물 배당 형식으로 양도받았다.

② The key issue 3EE Stock Claim is not the economic value because the CCC agreed to exempt the obligation to pay the 3EE Stock Price to the DD by way of the above 3E Stock Price agreement. The Plaintiff is not the 3EE Stock to implement the above 3E Stock Agreement.

This is because the issue of the 3EE Stock Claim is due to the Plaintiff’s duty to acquire the 3EE Stock Claim and transfer it to the 3EE Stock Claim to the DD subsidiaries, and if the Plaintiff fails to perform this duty, the 3E Stock Claim is valuable for the Plaintiff. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff acquired the 3E Stock Claim in the spot distribution form, it does not acquire any value-free property for the Plaintiff. ① According to the above agreement on the closure of the lawsuit, the Plaintiff is not only the CCC but also the Plaintiff, since the obligation to exempt the 3E Stock Claim from the obligation to pay the 3E Stock Claim, the Plaintiff’s waiver of the 3E Stock Claim does not perform the 3EE Stock Claim instead of performing the 3CC obligation instead of performing the 3CC obligation to purchase the 3E Stock Stock Claim. ② Under the above agreement on the closure of the lawsuit, the Plaintiff seems to have suffered losses from losing the 3E Stock Claim, but the Plaintiff may claim that the 3E Stock Claim was paid in kind by the Administrator of the CC as the 3CC.

(C) Sub-determination

Therefore, the 3rd issue of disposal of income should be revoked because it is illegal.

5. Issues 4 and 5 tax dispositions (at any time when the depreciation commencement date of the power plant)

"(1) The Plaintiff, in the case of an OO factory and an OO factory, intended to construct each of its own LNG complex electric power plant (hereinafter collectively referred to as "electric power plant of this case"). The period used from the commencement to the delivery of the final inspection certificate (FR) after the commencement of the construction to the completion of the construction contract for the AAA Construction (hereinafter referred to as "AA Construction"), is from February 21, 1999 to September 19, and from March 15, 1997 to December 5, 2001, the period used from the commencement of the construction to the delivery of the final inspection certificate to the AA Construction (the certificate issued by the Plaintiff who is the contractor after completion of the final inspection). In the case of an OO factory, the period used from the date of the first generation to the date of the second generation to the date of the second generation to the date of the second generation to the date of the second generation to the date of the second generation to the date of the second generation to the date of the second generation to the end of the second generation.

(3) According to the contract between the Plaintiff and AA Construction, the Plaintiff issued preliminary approval certificates for each type of 00 to AA Construction for each type of 200 to 30 points, for each type of 40 points, for each type of 200 points to 30 points, for each type of 10 points or 4 points, for each type of 30 points or 5 points or less, for each type of 10 points or 5 points or less, for each type of 10 points or 5 points or less, for each type of 200 points or less, for each type of 30 points or 10 points or more, and for each type of 10 points or more, for each type of 10 points or more, for each type of 10 points or 3 points or more, and for each type of 20 points or more, for each type of 10 points or more, the Plaintiff finally recognized the commencement date of depreciation for each type of 201 points or more.

B. Parties’ assertion

(1) The argument of the Defendant’s book is as follows.

Since the instant power plant mold is a complex power plant, it is necessary to commence depreciation for each power plant, and all preliminary approval tests (PAT) for the open space of the power plant can normally use the power plant, and may undergo pre-use inspection for the power plant under the Electric Utility Act, the date the preliminary approval tests for the open space for the open space are completed shall be deemed to be the date the final approval tests for the open space for the power plant are completed shall be deemed to be the commencement date of the power plant. Nor can it be deemed that part of the power plant have been completed by producing some open space equipment during the start-up period of the power plant.

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows.

Since each empty machine may be installed independently and classified, depreciation by each empty machine may commence. Each empty machine shall be deemed to have completed a part of the power plant when it produces stable power and supplies steel production facilities. As such, the commencement date of depreciation of each empty machine is the commencement date of the supply of electricity by each empty machine.

(c) relevant statutes;

"Attached 8 points 4 and 5 are as stated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes", and D.

(1) According to Article 23 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9267 of Dec. 26, 2008), the depreciation costs of fixed assets shall be included in deductible expenses in calculating the income amount for the pertinent business year. According to Article 24(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17033 of Dec. 29, 2000), assets under construction are not included in depreciable assets, and assets under construction or assets under trial operation to test their performance are excluded from depreciation assets. However, if part of the constructed assets is completed and used for the pertinent business, such part constitutes depreciable assets.

(2) Determination

In full view of the purport of the Plaintiff’s arguments, the instant power plants were designed in the form of a single equipment combining the first generation facilities with the second generation facilities, with a view to enhancing the heat efficiency in the process of electricity generation. ② The Plaintiff failed to submit objective evidence, such as a contract document by which delivery time of each developed area, manufacturing cost, etc. can be grasped. ③ From March 1, 2000, the date when the supply of electricity was commenced until July 24, 200, it is recognized as the depreciation commencement date to have been approved by the Defendant Seo-gu as having received the entire procedure for the completion of the inspection from the 26.8% of the normal operation hours, 28% of the normal operation hours, 200, and 31% of the total operation hours of the pre-use inspection of the pre-use facility, and 30% of the previous installation of the pre-use inspection after the completion of the inspection by the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy.

Therefore, the 4th and 5th dispositions are legitimate.

6. Issues 6 dispositions (transactions in which the Plaintiff purchased Australia from the FF).

A. Relevant circumstances of the 6th disposition

On January 14, 1981, the Plaintiff: (a) invested 100% of the FFF, a Australia company, to develop Australia coal mine; (b) invested R in the R coal mine at the investment ratio of 2:8, which is a Australia company (hereinafter referred to as "R"); (c) the FFF, around that time, agreed to purchase and sell the coal extracted from the above mine (hereinafter referred to as "FFF share in the mining mine") through the SSS. (hereinafter referred to as "SS") that is the selling company of Australia; (d) supplied the FFF share in the purchase and sale of the coal in accordance with the Agreement between the FFF and RF 2:8; and (e) the Plaintiff agreed to distribute the FF share in the purchase and sale agreement between the SS200-year-long-term and the 2:00-year-long-term-term-long-term-term-term-term-term-term-term-term-sale (S000).

(3) Around March 2001, the Plaintiff agreed to extend the above SS’s basic contract to 10,000 tons each year until March 201, and purchased 500,000 tons each year from 35,000 tons per ton in the case of 2001 (Evidence A 23). The Plaintiff entered into an additional contract (hereinafter referred to as “additional contract with SS”) with SS separately from the basic contract with the above SS and supplied the above Australia at the price of 50,00 tons each year from April 1, 201 to 203 (the Plaintiff’s option to deduct 【20% each year with the Plaintiff’s option) at the price of 1.5% per ton per ton under the basic contract with the above SS (Evidence A evidence 24).

(4) Meanwhile, the FF purchased the FF at the price of USD 1.5 ton of the RF’s shares in the basic contract with the SS and sold it to the Plaintiff at the price of 600,000 tons in the above SS’s basic contract price as the RR did not find a place of sales of the surplus coal. From around 1998 to 2000, the FF purchased the FF at the price of USD 1.5 to 1.5 to 2000 in the above SS’s basic contract price as the RR’s shares were sold to the Plaintiff during a period from 201 to 204, after purchasing the 60,000 tons in the above Australia’s shares from SS to 1.5,500 tons in the above SS’s basic contract price from SS to 200 to 204 in the above SS’s basic contract price.

‘SS Transaction', and ‘The key transaction between FFF and FF', in relation to the sale of coal purchased by FF from SS to the Plaintiff.

(5) The quantities and prices of Australia coal purchased by the Plaintiff from the SSS and FF from 2000 to 2004 are as follows:

(6) The terms and conditions of the comparable transaction with SS and the key transaction with FF are as follows: (a) the comparable transaction with SS and the key transaction with FF are as follows: (b) the comparable transaction with FF:

For the period from 200 to 2004, the defendant-appellant determined that the plaintiff purchased Australia at a price of USD 1.5 per ton US dollars (the price sold by the SSS) from FF, a person with a special relationship, for a period of time from 2000 to 2004, and applied Articles 4 and 5 of the former Adjustment of International Taxes Act (amended by Act No. 9266 of Dec. 26, 2008) to the amount of difference with the arm's length price, thereby imposing corporate tax and additional tax for the year 200 to 204 (hereinafter referred to as "instant imposition").

[Based on Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Gap evidence 3, 4, Gap evidence 22 to 26-3, Gap evidence 60, Eul evidence 1 to 5-2, Eul evidence 33 to 38, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Parties’ assertion

(1) The argument of the Defendant’s book is as follows.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of the FFF on behalf of the FFF, negotiated coal prices that the FFF purchases in a large quantity from SS, and then supplied coal at a price higher than the negotiation price and transferred the difference between the price and the arm’s length price that the Plaintiff bought from the FF to the FF. As such, it is lawful to deem that the difference between the price and the arm’s length price that the Plaintiff bought from the FF is deductible expenses. The underlying statutes of the disposition are Articles 4 and 5(1)1 of the former Adjustment of International Taxes Act (amended by Act No. 9266, Dec. 26, 2008).

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows.

“The third party pricing method” is a method to regard the transaction price between independent business operators who do not have a special relationship as the arm’s length price in a transaction similar to the transaction in question. The price determined by the Plaintiff’s basic contract with the above SS is the same as the price for the key transaction with the FF. The price for the key transaction with the above FFF is less than the long-term supply price (the price for the key transaction with the above FF) determined by Japan’s iron office in consultation with the supply company using the joint purchase system, and is below the arm’s length price. The FFF’s work to receive a discount from the SSS is due to the FFF’s efforts.

(c) Related statutes;

Attached 9 is as shown in the "Related Acts and subordinate statutes 6, 7, and 9".

D. Determination

(1) According to Article 2 (1) 1 of the former Adjustment of International Taxes Act (amended by Act No. 9266 of Dec. 26, 2008), "international trade" means that either or both of the parties to the transaction are absent.