beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap42843 (Law No. 12, 2011)
Case Number of the previous trial
early 208west2590 ( October 13, 2010)
Title
It can not be viewed as a high-priced purchase because the market price of the AS parts transport service is not proven.
Summary
(1) If it is not recognized that the plaintiff was provided with high-priced services from a person with a special relationship because the tax authority failed to prove that the tax authority properly calculated the market price of the AS parts transport services, the disposition that the plaintiff denied and imposed on the plaintiff by wrongful calculation without further need to determine the remaining issues related to the economic rationality is unlawful.
Cases
2011Nu29924 (2012.05.04)
Plaintiff, Appellant
AAAAA Corporation
Defendant, appellant and appellant
Head of the District Tax Office
Judgment of the first instance court
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap42843 decided August 12, 2011
Conclusion of Pleadings
March 27, 2012
Imposition of Judgment
May 4, 2012
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. Purport of claim
The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 00 of corporate tax for the business year 2002, March 15, 2008, and the imposition of KRW 000 of corporate tax for the business year 2003, which was April 10, 2008, and each revocation of the imposition of KRW 000 of corporate tax for the business year 2003, which was made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. Among the imposition of corporate tax on August 14, 2008, the part exceeding KRW 00 of corporate tax for the business year 2004, exceeding KRW 00,000 of corporate tax for the business year 2005, and exceeding KRW 00 of corporate tax for the business year 2006, respectively, shall be revoked.
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The court's explanation on this case is identical to the entry of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this as is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Conclusion
If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.
[Attachment]