The common advertising expenses for the sale of commercial buildings shall be calculated on the basis of a store with the advertising effect.

The common advertising expenses for the sale of commercial buildings shall be calculated based on the store having the effect of the advertisement for each time and place, so it is reasonable to calculate the sharing amount accordingly. Therefore, the initial disposition to calculate the sharing amount based on the simple aggregate of the selling value of commercial buildings after the fact is illegal.

Article 19 (Scope of Deductible Expenses)

Article 48 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

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 disposition of imposition of KRW 68,371,40 of corporate tax for the business year 2000, KRW 6,159,040 of the special rural development tax, KRW 6,159,040 of the special rural development tax, KRW 1,042,257,620 of the corporate tax for the business year 2001, KRW 73,831,250 of the value-added tax for the first period of the business year 1999, KRW 190,417,470 of the value-added tax for the second period of the business year 1999, KRW 149,587,640 of the value-added tax for the second period of the business year 200, KRW 118,01,50 of the value-added tax for the second period of the second period of the business year 200, KRW 17,214,740 of the value-added tax for the second period of the business year 2003.

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 the judgment of this court is as follows: "A evidence No. 3" in the fifth five-party seven of the judgment of the court of first instance with "No. 3" in the 7th 12,13 parallel "No. 9,36,000 won" in the 7th 7th 12,13 parallel "No. 6,600,700, and 28,055,000 won in the aggregate; "No. 9,368,000 won in the 28,05,000 won in the aggregate; "No. 6,60,60,000 won in the 28,05,000 won in the 16th 16th £«; "No. 1,054,523,00 won in the 1,000 won in the 1,057,000 won in the 28,0057,005 won in the 201.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and 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.

[Supreme Court Decision 2007Du8058 (No. 15, 2008)]

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below cited the judgment of the court of first instance and acknowledged the facts as indicated in its holding. If the plaintiff disbursed advertising expenses to enhance the image and awareness of the trademark "○○○○○○○○○○○," which is used jointly with the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "○○○○○○") and its related party, it is similar to the case where a corporation operating a joint business actually incurred expenses, and thus, it is reasonable to not include the amount exceeding the plaintiff's share in deductible expenses out of the above advertising expenses in deductible expenses. In relation to the calculation method of the above advertising expenses, the court below determined that it is reasonable for the plaintiff to regard the above advertising expenses as being related not only to the area where the plaintiff had ○○○○○ store, as the advertising expenses from 199 to 2001 were broadcast or distributed across the country as well as to the area where the above advertising expenses were located, and therefore, it is difficult to view the advertising effect of each advertisement at the time of sale after the commencement, sale, and relocation of the advertisement at ○○○ store.

In light of relevant laws and records, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of Article 48 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19891 of Feb. 28, 2007) as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

In addition, according to the facts and records duly established by the court below, if the ratio of the total amount of expenses for advertisement in this case's disposition is changed to the ratio of the amount of expenses for advertisement in the immediately preceding business year pursuant to Article 48 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and the amount of expenses for advertisement in this case's business year's business year's business year's business year's business year's business year's business year's business year's business year's business year's business year's business year's total amount of expenses is increased to the amount of expenses for advertisement, so this part of the disposition is legitimate. However, as alleged by the defendant, the court below did not make an explicit decision. However, even if the amount of expenses for advertisement in this case's business year's business year's business year's business year's business year's business year's total amount of expenses is calculated based on the ratio of the plaintiff's sales in this case's business year's business year's immediately preceding business year's business year's business year's total amount of expenses, it is not reasonable.

Therefore, as long as the judgment of the court below is justified in its conclusion, the above error of the court below did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, so the ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.