beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff was established on May 15, 2003 and settled each year on December 31, 200, and was not a small and medium enterprise for the first time in 2010 business year, but was subject to the application of the grace period for small and medium enterprises pursuant to Article 2(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22583, Dec. 30, 201; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act”).
B. The Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises applies mutatis mutandis to the requirements for small and medium enterprises under the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on Small and Medium Enterprises. The Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises, which was amended by Presidential Decree No. 21368 on March 25, 2009 (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises”), provides that the companies belonging to “related companies” should meet the standards for the size of small and medium enterprises by adding item (c) to the requirements for actual independence of small
C. Since then, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 22583 on December 30, 2010, Article 2(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that where the total sales amount, etc. of relevant companies meet the exclusion criteria, Article 3 subparag. 2(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Special Measures for Trade, Industry and Energy (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22583, Dec. 30, 2010) shall not be applied to a grace period of small and medium enterprises that met the exclusion criteria, but the amended provisions of Article 2(1)3 of the Addenda of the Act on the Special Measures for Trade, Industry and Energy (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22
The Plaintiff’s dominant holding company (hereinafter “cock holding company”) is the company subject to external audit, and the K&P holding company is the company subject to external audit (hereinafter “K&P holding company”).
The Plaintiff owned 70% of the shares of the Plaintiff and owned 76.8% of the total shares of the Plaintiff, along with the KWWn Investment. The Plaintiff constitutes a related company under the Enforcement Decree of the Technology Development Act. The Plaintiff and each of the above companies’ sales for the business year of 2012.