New Daegu Busan Expressway Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jeong Byung-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Kim Jong-soo

April 6, 2016

Changwon District Court Decision 2013Guhap20606 Decided October 17, 2014

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, “26,761,096,305 won” in paragraph 1(2) of the same Article shall be corrected to “26,761,096,302 won”.

1. Purport of claim

The primary purport of the claim is that the defendant made on July 1, 2013 to the plaintiff on July 1, 2011, the remaining 2006 business year shall be 26,761,096,302 won (However, the phrase " July 2, 2013" appears to read "26,761,096,305 won" as "26,761,096,302 won" as "26,761,096,302 won" as "26,761,096, 302 won" as "28,252,503,432 won, and the remaining balance in the business year 2009 shall be increased from 58,039,196,392 won to 78,200,811,292 won, and the rejection disposition against the amount of losses that occurred in the business year 2010 to 3,383,8485,7484,7

Preliminary claim: The same shall apply to the statement in the primary claim, except that the date of disposition is February 2, 2012 (the " February 6, 2012" stated in the complaint appears to be the clerical error in the " February 2, 2012").

2. Purport of appeal

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

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, and (b) is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) thus, it is accepted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (it is not different from the judgment of the court of first instance even if the defendant

A. The height part

○ List Nos. 5 and 6 of the Judgment of the first instance court shall be substituted by the following table:

(2) The deductible expenses for the remaining amount of 2010-years of 205, the deficit incurred for the business year of 205 to 36,757, 361, 96, 96, 267, 268, 304, 268, 368, 364, 205, 205, 207, 205, 207, 205, 2084, 205, 207, 205, 205, 304, 205, 2074, 205, 2064, 307, 265, 307, 2654, 368, 364, 258, 250, 207, 207, 207, 2007, 206, 194, 1974

○ Attached Act No. 21 provides, “The Framework Act on National Taxes” as “The former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014).”

○ Article 21 of the Act No. 6 of the attached Form 21 shall be referred to as “decision”.

(b) Additional part: The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance [Article 2-2-b. 1]

The Plaintiff’s claim for correction of the instant case is filed in the course of a series of process to dispute the correction and decision of February 2, 2012 by the Defendant, and the Defendant’s correction and decision on February 2, 2012 can be deemed as corresponding to the “assessment disposition of corporate tax for the following business year, which is an independent disposition separate from the final and conclusive taxation disposition.”

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is obvious that "26,761,096,305 won" among the judgment of the court of first instance is an error of "26,761,096,302 won" among the judgment of the court of first instance is an error of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kang Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)