[1] The meaning of the setting aside of wrongful calculation and its determination criteria under Article 20 of the former Corporate Tax Act and Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the act of paying company company company company company subsidies to its employees in a smoke-free notice is not subject to the rejection of unfair calculation

[3] Whether a taxpayer can claim correction based on cooking (negative), and whether a tax authority's rejection rejection request against a taxpayer who is not based on the tax-related Acts can be viewed as a rejection disposition subject to appeal (negative)

[1] The rejection of unfair calculation under Article 20 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998; hereinafter "the former Act") and Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act (hereinafter "the Act") applies only to cases where a corporation's act of wrongful calculation under Article 20 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998; hereinafter "the former Act") is deemed to have avoided or reduced tax burden by abusing all the forms of transactions listed in each subparagraph of Article 46 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Act and each subparagraph of Article 88 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Act without a reasonable method by a person with a special relationship. The determination of whether an economic rationality exists should be made based on the circumstances that the person with a right to taxation denies or reduces the tax burden, not on the basis of a sound transaction with a person with a special relationship.

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the payment of the above company subsidy cannot be deemed to be an abnormal transaction with economic rationality in light of sound social norms or commercial practice, since the payment of the company subsidy was made to the employees of the manufacturing and selling company of the so-called clean beverage in the notice of non-performance in lieu of the provision of the company house excluded from the application of the denial of wrongful calculation.

[3] Unless otherwise expressly provided for in the Framework Act on National Taxes or individual tax-related Acts, the right to claim for correction by cooking cannot be acknowledged. Thus, even if the tax-related authority made a reply against the rejection of the request for correction by a taxpayer who is not based on the tax-related Acts, it shall not be deemed a rejection disposition that is the object of appeal.

[1] Article 20 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998), Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 46 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970 of Dec. 31, 1998), Article 8 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act / [2] Article 20 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998), Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 46 (2) 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970 of Dec. 31, 1998), Article 8 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 15970 of Dec. 31, 198), Article 86 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act / [see current Article 8 (2)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu8751 delivered on July 26, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2711), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu18697 delivered on May 28, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 1920), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1929 delivered on July 24, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2259), Supreme Court Decision 99Du10131 delivered on November 27, 2001 (Gong202Sang, 194), Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268 delivered on September 4, 200 (Gong202Ha, 2360), Supreme Court Decision 209Du208489 delivered on July 13, 200, Supreme Court Decision 2009Du839489 delivered on July 24, 2004)

Lawing Plurian beverage Co., Ltd. (Law Firm, Kim & Lee, Attorneys Kim Tae-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of Seocho Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Nu12389 delivered on June 25, 2004

The part of the lower judgment regarding the disposition rejecting the instant claim for correction is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The Defendant’s remaining appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the legitimacy of the disposition imposing corporate tax

Article 20 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998; hereinafter “former Act”) and Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act (hereinafter “Act”) apply only to cases where a corporation’s wrongful calculation under Article 20 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998; hereinafter “former Act”) is deemed to avoid or reduce tax burden by abusing all the forms of transactions listed in the subparagraphs of Article 46 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Act and the subparagraphs of Article 88 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act without a reasonable method by a person with a special relationship. In such a case, the determination of whether an economic rationality exists shall be made not only where the person with a right to taxation denies or reduces tax burden by abusing the forms of transactions, but also shall also be made not by a person with a special relationship with the person with a special relationship, and shall also be made not by a person with a special relationship with the Supreme Court. 197.

After compiling the evidence adopted, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding. Since the Plaintiff, a company that manufactures and sells soft beverages, takes into account the fact that it is essential to provide company housing for its executives and employees who worked in the annual notice for the efficient management and operation of the branch industrial accident in each nation, the Plaintiff prepared and operated the regulations on the payment of such company housing from June 1, 198. According to the above provisions, the Plaintiff purchased or provided as company housing for the head of the branch office, the vice-head, the head of the factory, and the head of the factory (hereinafter referred to as the “head of the branch office, etc.”) falling under Class 3 because it is not reasonable to provide a certain amount of company housing subsidy regardless of the scale or type of the house, and it is against the law that the Plaintiff would not be able to use the housing subsidy for the purpose of using the new branch office, etc. which is not subject to the application of the Housing Lease Protection Act, and that the Plaintiff would not be able to receive a new company housing subsidy for the purpose of using the new branch office subsidy, etc.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and the records, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the denial of wrongful calculation, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. As to the legitimacy of the disposition rejecting the instant request for correction

A. The judgment of the court below

The court below held that the defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff's rejection disposition against the plaintiff's rejection disposition against the plaintiff's rejection disposition against the payment of the company company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company company's company's company's company's company company's company's company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company company's company

B. Judgment of the Supreme Court

Before the judgment on the merits, unless there is any express provision that recognizes the right to request correction under the Framework Act on National Taxes or the individual tax laws, the right to request correction under the cooking cannot be acknowledged, and even if the tax authority rejected a request for correction of a taxpayer who did not have the basis for the tax law, it cannot be viewed as a rejection disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, even if the tax authority rejected the request, it cannot be viewed as a rejection disposition that is subject to appeal litigation ( further, Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Du1878 Decided April 20, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1878 Decided April 20, 2006, the person who voluntarily paid the withheld tax amount was recognized as a tax administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation and also

Therefore, even if the defendant made a reply based on the right to request correction of this case based on the right to request correction of this case, the response cannot be deemed to constitute a rejection disposition subject to appeal, and thus, the plaintiff's request for revocation of the plaintiff's request for rejection of correction of this case based on the premise that the above response constitutes a rejection disposition of this case shall be deemed to be illegal, but the court below's decision on the merits of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff has the right to request correction under the right to request correction of this case

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the rejection of the instant claim for correction is reversed without examining the argument in the grounds of appeal, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)