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 is a company that manufactures chemical products, such as organic powder, which is a chemical promotion agent.
B. From March 30, 2001, B managed the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s internal director and vice president or representative director, and the method of directly supplying the products produced by the Plaintiff to the business partners, including the Korea Petroleum Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Petroleum Chemical Co., Ltd.”), which was invested by C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Petroleum Co., Ltd.”) that was established by B (50% of the issued shares B, 30% of the issued shares, B’s wife D, 10% of the issued shares, and 10% was owned by B F of the Plaintiff’s management department, and E’s representative director and D were registered as directors; hereinafter “C”).
C. Accordingly, from March 31, 2006, the Plaintiff supplied 4,700 won per 1 km, a chemical promotion agent, to C, and C supplied the same product to C by September 29, 2010, such as supplying 5,000 won per 1 km, and C supplied the same product to the transaction partner, such as Chineseation.
As a result of conducting an integrated investigation of corporate tax against the Plaintiff from March 12, 2012 to May 10, 2012, the Defendant: (a) deemed the appropriate market price of the Plaintiff’s products supplied to the transaction partner, such as foreignization, under circumstances where it is difficult to verify the general transaction price of the Plaintiff’s products; and (b) determined that the Plaintiff sold the Plaintiff’s products at the low price to C, a person with a special relationship, to include the difference in the calculation of income and the calculation of the difference in accordance with the provision on the denial of unfair calculation (Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act) in accordance with the regulations on the calculation of wrongful calculation; and (c) reflected the Plaintiff’s calculation of the difference in the calculation of income; and (d) included the corporate tax from 2007 to 2011, including corporate tax of 141,473,790 won in the business year from 207 to 2010, the Plaintiff paid the corporate tax, etc. of this case at that time.
E. B violates its occupational duty and supplies the Plaintiff to C.