Korea Local Administration Mutual Aid Association (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Kim Jong-sub et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

September 14, 2017

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Guhap68472 decided June 23, 2017

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on May 15, 2014 against the plaintiff shall be revoked in accordance with 374,972,628 corporate tax for the business year 2010.

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 of this court's judgment is as follows, and the defendant's additional decision as to the defendant's argument is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court, except for the addition of Paragraph 2 below to the defendant's additional decision, and therefore, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ 2 19 lines "deductibles" are added to "deductibles".

Article 16 (12) 12 of the Income Tax Act shall be applied to "Article 16 (1) 12 of the Income Tax Act" of the 13th 16th 16 line.

The "charges" of the 14th 7 lines shall be raised to "charges".

○ 10 up to 18 lines from “a partner” to “a partner” of 16 lines shall be deleted.

2. Additional determination as to the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion

Among the instant surcharges, there is an error in the calculation of the instant surcharges, as it is impossible to specify only the portion having the nature of interest expenses, such as special surcharges having the nature of dividend and special surcharges, among the instant surcharges, and thus, the instant surcharges cannot be included as losses as interest expenses.

B. Determination

The evidence Nos. 6-1 and 8 provides that it is difficult to conclude that the retirement benefit reserve contains special surtax and special surcharge interest among the instant surcharge. Rather, the instant surcharge does not include special surcharge and special surcharge, etc. as seen earlier. As such, the Defendant’s above assertion premised on the fact that the instant surcharge included special surcharge and special surcharge are included in the retirement benefit reserve (as the Defendant’s assertion, even if special surcharge and special surcharge are included in the retirement benefit reserve of this case, the instant disposition of refusal is rendered on the premise that the Defendant’s payment should be recognized as deductible expenses, on the premise that the instant surcharge and special surcharge should be included in the retirement benefit reserve of this case, and thus, the amount of the first decision of the instant disposition of refusal should be revoked, on the ground that the instant surcharge and the “the amount of retirement benefit additional and special surcharge added to Korea’s oil added to deductible expenses and the amount of surcharge added to the trust benefit of this case should be included in the expenses for the proper purpose business to be included in the calculation of deductible expenses.” Thus, the entire amount of the instant surcharge cannot be revoked.

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.

Justices Cho Jong-dae (Presiding Justice)