Changwon District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-21422 ( October 16, 2015)

Because there are machinery subject to depreciation and there are management ledger and transaction price evidence, denial of depreciation costs is unreasonable.

(The same as the first instance court) The denial of depreciation costs is unreasonable in view of the fact that there is a machine subject to depreciation and the continuous management of the facility management ledger, and the fact that the amount similar to the financial account has been withdrawn in the daily newspapers prior to the purchase of machinery and equipment is used.

Article 19 (Scope of Deductible Expenses)

(C)The revocation of the disposition of imposing corporate tax;

AAtech (State)

00. Head of tax office

Changwon District Court Decision 2014Guhap21422 Decided June 16, 2015

November 30, 2016

December 28, 2014

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The corporate tax of 00,000,000 won (including additional taxes) paid to the Plaintiff on October 0, 2013 by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for the business year 2008;

Corporate tax of 200,000,000 (including additional tax), corporate tax of 2010

(including additional taxes), 18,772,260 won of corporate tax for the business year 201, and 2012

The imposition of tax of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional taxes) shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation

The dismissal is dismissed.

1. Scope of adjudication of this court;

A. The Plaintiff sought revocation of each disposition stated in the purport of the claim in the first instance court, and the court of the first instance revoked the portion exceeding KRW 00,00,000,00 among the disposition of correction of increase issued with the additional corporate tax for each business year of 208, 2009, 2011, and 2012 and the disposition of correction of increase issued with the additional corporate tax for each business year of 2011, and dismissed the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim. (B) Since the Defendant’s appeal was lodged only against this, the scope

2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance other than to dismiss or add the reasons for the judgment as follows. Thus, this court's explanation is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 2 of the judgment of the first instance court (hereinafter referred to as "the machinery of this case") is "(hereinafter referred to as "the machinery of this case". When referring to 6 parts of the machinery, 'the machinery of this case'. When 'the 6 parts of the machinery of this case' are individually referred to 'the 6 parts of the machinery of this case', 'the 6 parts of the machinery of this case are classified according to the classification number of the following table (for example, 'the 1 machinery of this case' in the case of the 1 machinery of this case).

Part III of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. Part I through VI of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 1. 1. b. of the judgment of the court of first instance) are as follows.

B. On April 2013, the Defendant issued a revised disposition of adding the depreciation costs and bonuses of this case to the Plaintiff on October 0, 2013, on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s tax investigation conducted against the Plaintiff as a processed asset and that there was no ground for the payment of the bonus of this case (including additional taxes), including the corporate tax of KRW 0,000,000 (including additional taxes), corporate tax of KRW 00,000 (including additional taxes), corporate tax of KRW 00,000 (including additional taxes), corporate tax of KRW 00,000 for the business year 2010, corporate tax of KRW 00,000 (including additional taxes), corporate tax of KRW 00,000 for the business year 2012, corporate tax of KRW 00,000 for the business year 200,000 (including additional taxes) (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”).

After the first instance judgment at the bottom of the fifth of the judgment of the first instance court, "(as a result of the appraisal by the first instance appraiser KimCC, the value of the machinery of this case as of May 2007 is about 00,000,000 won as of the appraisal based on domestic machinery. However, the first, second, third, five, and six machines of this case are Japanese and German, and the fact-finding results of the first instance court's fact-finding with the above KimCC and the first instance trial testimony by KimCC are based on the same performance, standard, and all new products or second products are high compared to domestic products. However, according to the fact-finding results with the above fact-finding with respect to DD of the first instance court, it seems that the first machinery of this case at the price of the second, second, third, five, and six machines of this case is higher than the above value of the second, second, and second, half, and half of this case at the time of the first instance court's trial."

Part VI through VI of the Decision of the first instance court (Article 2.3(c)(3) of the Decision of the first instance) are as follows.

(3) The plaintiff prepared a statement of depreciation costs of tangible fixed assets from 2008 to 2012, and appropriated the machinery of this case as 00,000,000,000 won on October 0, 207, and applied the fixed rate method of 200,000 won each year as follows. The plaintiff asserted 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 20,000,000, 20,000,000, 7,000,000,000, 20,000,000,000,00 won on the 0,00,00,000,00 won on the 20,07,007.

v) The Plaintiff claims that KRW 000,000,000, which was withdrawn on October 0, 2007 from the passbook KimB, was the purchase price for the instant machines Nos. 5 and 6. However, in the facility records management, the Plaintiff added “the instant machines Nos. 5 and 6, which were installed at the Plaintiff’s factory on October 0, 2007.”

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.