beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap6578 ( December 18, 2015)
Title
Whether losses incurred in the Gesung Industrial District may be recognized as losses under the Corporate Tax Act;
Summary
Losses incurred in the course of operating a business approved as one of the inter-Korean economic cooperation projects in the GIC district by a domestic corporation shall be included in deductible expenses as corporate tax law applies.
Cases
2016Nu3122 Revocation of revocation of revocation of correction
Plaintiff-Appellant
Korea ○
Defendant-Appellee
○ Head of tax office
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap6578 decided December 18, 2015
Imposition of Judgment
July 19, 2016
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. Purport of claim
On July 8, 2014, the Defendant revoked the disposition rejecting to rectify the increase of ○○○○○○○ in the business year 2010 against the Plaintiff.
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The court's reasoning for this case is as follows: (a) No. 7 of the first instance court's decision No. 13; (b) No. 7 of the said decision No. 13; (c) the contents of the agreement of this case should be applied in preference to the domestic tax law; (d) the contents not prescribed in the agreement of this case should be applied first under the domestic tax law; and (e) No. 8 of the title No. 4 of the instant tax law; and (e) the provisions for the carried-over deduction of losses under Article 24 of the instant tax law and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are as follows: (a) although the provisions for the carried-over deduction of losses under Article 24 of the instant tax law and the provisions for the carried-over deduction of losses are provided to domestic enterprises located in the ○○ Industrial District, the plaintiff could not actually receive the benefits of the carried-over deduction of losses under the above provisions as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.