beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells automatic control equipment.
B. On January 10, 2014, the Plaintiff held a board of directors and decided not to pay retirement allowances to B’s representative director on or after July 1, 2014. On July 4, 2014, the Plaintiff held a board of directors and decided to pay B KRW 1.56 billion as the interim settlement of retirement allowances as of June 30, 2014 (hereinafter “instant interim settlement of retirement allowances”).
C. Upon filing a corporate tax return with the Defendant for the business year 2014, the Plaintiff included the instant interim retirement allowance in deductible expenses.
From April 7, 2016 to May 2, 2016, the Defendant conducted an integrated investigation into corporate tax against the Plaintiff. As a result, the Defendant: (a) deemed the interim settlement retirement pay in the instant case as an unrelated party to be non-deductible expenses; (b) deducted the recognized interest, KRW 134,91,459 ( KRW 27,351,459, KRW 107,640,000, KRW 10,347,311 from gross income and non-deductible expenses; and (c) deducted the already paid tax amount from the aggregate of KRW 352,516,080 (calculated tax amount from KRW 355,612,109, KRW 65,930, KRW 240, KRW 609, KRW 260, KRW 260, KRW 107, KRW 2531, KRW 205, KRW 2937, KRW 205, KRW 2937, KRW 2014, KRW 27537.
(hereinafter “each disposition of this case”). (e)
The Plaintiff sought revocation of each disposition of the instant case and filed a tax appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on December 14, 2016.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 8-4, 5-5, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate
A. Article 44(2)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26068, Feb. 3, 2015) (hereinafter “instant provision”) asserted by the Plaintiff.