2012 Heavy3424 ( December 28, 2012)

To exclude the reduction or exemption for small or medium start-up enterprises, etc. by deeming a conversion into a corporation.

Although the representative of the plaintiff is the same and the plaintiff is deemed to have succeeded to the main sales and purchase place of the individual business, it is nothing more than converting the substantial part of the existing business into a corporation in order to expand the existing business operated by the individual business entity.

Article 6 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2013Guhap2939 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Corporate Tax, etc.

○○ Co., Ltd.

Head of Suwon Tax Office

May 22, 2014

July 3, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Each disposition of KRW 000 of the corporate tax belonging to the business year 2007-2009 that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on December 15, 2011 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 5, 2006, the Plaintiff reported 50% of the calculated tax amount as follows pursuant to Article 6(1)1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8827 of Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter “former Restriction of Special Taxation Act”) upon filing a corporate tax return for the business year of 2007 through 2010 with a small and medium enterprise established for the purpose of operating electronic components manufacturing business at Suwon-si.

B. The Daegu regional tax office’s auditor notified the Defendant that the establishment of the Plaintiff constitutes a case where it is difficult to deem that a new business is commenced for the first time, such as the expansion of the business of △△ Electronic, operated by the representative director of the office of representative, and the addition of other types of business.

C. On December 12, 2011, the Defendant: (a) applied the Special Tax Reduction or Exemption for Small or Medium Enterprise under Article 7(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (20% of the reduction or exemption rate) to the Plaintiff, instead of the provision on reduction or exemption of taxes for small or medium start-up enterprises under Article 6(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (50% of the reduction or exemption rate); (b) as follows, corrected and notified corporate tax for the business year 2007 to 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On March 9, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the director of the Central Tax Office, but was dismissed on April 20, 2012. On August 1, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on December 28, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 11-1-2, Gap evidence 12-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1-4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The fact that the Plaintiff produced and sold the KON, which had been produced by △△ electronics, before the commencement of the business after the establishment of the Plaintiff, is the company mainly producing the KON. However, the Plaintiff is an enterprise mainly producing the mobile phone cans and Y cansing cans (hereinafter referred to as 'Ying cans, etc.'), and the Plaintiff was established by receiving technical cooperation from the representative director of the Plaintiff for the business such as rest cans, etc., and △ electronic is converted into a corporation and operated normally separately from the Plaintiff until now, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s establishment falls under the “business start-up as prescribed by Article 6(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act” but the disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

2) Even if it is difficult to view the Plaintiff as a business start-up on the ground that the Plaintiff produced and sold KON to maintain a corporation at the early stage of its establishment, the part where the Plaintiff sold a rest cans, etc. constitutes a typical business start-up, and thus, this part should be reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 6(1

(b) Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Outline of the establishment of △ electronic

On May 1, 1997, the representative director of Jung-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (the plaintiff's representative director) started a personal business manufacturing electronic parts from Suwon Special Metropolitan City to Suwon Special Metropolitan City on February 10, 200, transferred the place of business to Suwon Special Metropolitan City on November 6, 2006 (the same location as the place of business at the time of establishment of the plaintiff), and transferred the place of business to Suwon Special Metropolitan City on December 16, 2006 (the same location as the place of business at the time of establishment of the plaintiff).

2) Location of the Plaintiff and △ Electronics

At the time of the establishment of the Plaintiff, both the Plaintiff and △ Electronic are moving into the same building located in the Suwon-si Industrial Complex (However, the location and direction of each entrance are different), and the Plaintiff moved to Suwon-si on February 20, 2014.

3) Current shareholder status of the Plaintiff

원고는 설립 당시부터 현재까지 대표이사가 정☆☆이고, 원고의 주식은 정☆☆이 70%를, 배◇◇이 20%를, 정▽▽(원고의 동생)이 5%를, 김♡♡이 5%를 각 소유하고 있다.

4) Whether the Plaintiff succeeds to △△ Electronic Staff

Before the establishment, 10 employees were employed in the immediately preceding △ electronics, and 5 of them were established and employed as employees.

5) Manufacturing items and sales status of the Plaintiff and △ Electronics

Both the Plaintiff and △ Electronic are classified into the 'bundances' under the Korean Standard Industrial Classification Table and the 'other electronic parts manufacturing business (coding code: 26299)', all of which produce and sell computer-related connectings, and in connection with the current △ Electronic cans, if the △ Electronic produces semi-finished products such as rest cans, the Plaintiff has been supplied with the above semi-finished products by △ Electronic and processed and sold finished products such as rest cans, etc. In addition, the above KON is used as computer parts such as PC, but the rest cans, etc. are mainly used for mobile devices such as handphones. The detailed sales status of each business year of the Plaintiff and △△ Electronic is specific.

The following shall be:

6) Customers of the Plaintiff and △ Electronics

The current status of sales offices of the Plaintiff’s initial establishment and △ Electronic is as follows:

The current status of purchasing places of the Plaintiff’s initial establishment and △ Electronic is as follows:

7) Plaintiff’s initial assets, etc.

On May 3, 2007, the Plaintiff applied for a "printed circuit board fastening room room" for registration on December 3, 2007, and registered on February 25, 2007, and registered on February 25, 2009. However, according to the Plaintiff's standard balance sheet (Evidence B No. 10) and the fixed asset ledger (Evidence B No. 11) prior to May 25, 2007, only ”VP-1510S video as machinery.

8) The plaintiff's Internet homepage posted contents

According to the plaintiff's "company history" (No. 9-2) in the plaintiff's Internet homepage, the "establishment of △△ electronic company on March 3, 1995, conversion to ○○○○○○○○○," and the "establishment of the company" in the above website (No. 9-2), the "establishment of the company" in the above website means "the company is developing and manufacturing electronic communication equipment (for the last ten years), and CONECR as a component of the surface of electronic and electronic equipment, and its business network is expanded to the domestic and overseas markets. In addition, the company's business network is expanded to the 2th anniversary of the last nine months."

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 8, Eul evidence No. 9-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 10, 11, Eul evidence No. 12 through 17 (including each number), Eul evidence No. 18 through 36, the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of the on-site inspection by this Court

D. Determination on the first argument

1) According to Article 6 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, with respect to a national designated as an operator of a business incubator under Article 6 (1) of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act, the tax amount equivalent to 50/100 of the income tax or corporate tax on the income accruing from the relevant business shall be reduced or exempted for the taxable year in which the first income accrues from the relevant business (if the business does not accrue until the taxable year including the date on which five years have passed from the date of commencing the business, the taxable year including the date on which five years have passed), and for the taxable year which ends within three years from the beginning of the following taxable year, and under Article 6 (4) 2 and 4 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, where a new corporation is established by converting the business operated by a resident into a corporation (Article 6 (4) 2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act), or where it is difficult to deem

On the other hand, with respect to the interpretation of the Act on Taxes and Charges, it shall be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of the Act, unless there are special circumstances, regardless of the requirements for imposition or exemption, and it shall not be permitted to expand or analogically interpret without reasonable grounds. In particular, it accords with the principle of fairness to strictly interpret that the provision is clearly considered as preferential provisions among the requirements for reduction or exemption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du9884, Oct. 26, 2007)

2) In light of the details and purport of the tax reduction and exemption system under the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, providing benefits for tax reduction and exemption by comprehensively taking account of the details of the establishment of the relevant small and medium enterprise, the details of the establishment of the relevant small and medium enterprise, and the specific transaction status, size, and actual conditions of the previous business and the newly established small and medium enterprise, not only

Based on the above, the following circumstances that can be known through the evidence and facts of recognition, i.e., the Plaintiff corporation: <1> the △△ Electronic Corporation operated the Plaintiff corporation.

The representative director is in charge of the representative director, and 70% of the shares of the plaintiff company is owned, and the plaintiff is established.

Meanwhile, 50% of the employees of △△ electronic work move to the Plaintiff; 3. The business classification code of both the Plaintiff and △△ electronic work is the same as 'other electronic parts manufacturing business'; 4. The Plaintiff’s semi-finished goods supplied by △△ electronic work and manufactures de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto 200 million won, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff is a company that mainly produces rest cans, etc.; 5. The Plaintiff did not have any production facilities except VM-1510S video product until mid-2007, which is difficult to directly produce the de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto 6 of the Special Tax Treatment Control Act, and thus, it is reasonable to see that the Plaintiff’s ex officio 200 million won and its ex officio de facto 200,000,000 won.

E. Judgment on the second argument

It should be interpreted strictly to be a provision that clearly preferential in terms of the requirements for reduction or exemption. The benefit of tax reduction or exemption under Article 6 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is interpreted as the provision on reduction or exemption, so long as the establishment, etc. of a small or medium enterprise satisfies the requirements for business start-up under the same Article, the act of establishing a small or medium enterprise is given to the entire business of the relevant small or medium enterprise so long as the act meets the requirements for business start-up under the same Article. Thus

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.