Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Partnership-72839 ( August 11, 2017)

Cho High-2016-west-614 (Law No. 167.22)

The date of provision of services under the tax invoice of this case constitutes the date of determination of the terms of payment of attorney fees.

In the process of the reinforcement investigation after the prosecution's non-detention, defense service was provided even during the process of the reinforcement investigation, and it is unclear whether the additional prosecution will be filed. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the terms and conditions of the payment of contingent remuneration on the date of non-detention

Article 40(1) of the Corporate Tax Act

2017Nu67959 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

Law Firm ○

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Guhap72839 decided August 11, 2017

April 24, 2018

May 15, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2010 against the plaintiff on July 0, 2015.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following to the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil

○ Part 6 of the first instance court's decision, No. 11, "no evidence exists," added to the following:

2-1 On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant agreement was concluded with an individual of AA, and did not report the sales of value-added tax to an individual of AA to the competent tax authority.

○ In the 8th sentence of the first instance court, the following shall be added to the seventh sentence:

① Although the instant agreement states that “in the event a prosecution for non-detained of the prosecutor’s office is filed, KRW 00 million shall be paid as contingent remuneration,” the instant agreement states that “in the event of a prosecution for non-detained of the prosecutor’s office, the prosecutor’s office and the court of first instance shall conclude a delegation contract concerning the handling of the case,” it appears that the overall acceptance of case services is expected regarding the handling of the case before and after the prosecution. In fact, BBB, the representative attorney of the plaintiff, performed the court-level defense activities in the same purport, and therefore, it is difficult to view that AA was completed the provision of services in accordance with the instant agreement solely on the ground that AA was indicted on or around October 209.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.