2014Nu56309 Financial subsidies

A Stock Company

Attorney Lee Jae-in, Kim Jae-hwan, Justice Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Korea

Law Firm Governing Law Firm

Attorney Cho Byung-jin, Kim Young-jin, Kim Chang-jin, Sho, Shoyoung, Cho Jong-ho, Kim Jong-Un, and leapnan

police officer:

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap57242 decided June 19, 2014

6, 2015

June 25, 2015

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 pay to the plaintiff 5.79 billion won with 4.21% interest per annum from July 11, 2011 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, and it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of some contents, and thus, it is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Pursuant to Article 43 and Article 44 of the concession agreement, the part "in accordance with Article 43 of the concession agreement" in Part 10 of the first instance court's decision is "in accordance with Article 10 of the concession agreement," respectively, "in accordance with Article 43 and Article 44 of the concession agreement." The part "in the first instance court's decision, it clearly stated that "the amendment was made to reflect any changes in the conditions, such as corporate tax rates, etc. at the time of the first concession agreement" was made on December 14, 2000 in the first instance court's decision, "the first amendment was made to reflect any changes in the conditions, such as total project cost, corporate tax rate, price fluctuation, traffic congestion, and initial adjustment of tolls," and clearly stated that "the following amendment was made on November 1, 2006 as the first concession agreement to reflect any changes in the conditions, such as corporate tax rate."

The following shall be added to the part of the 11th judgment of the first instance. "..................."

If we interpret the tolls under the main issue clause of this case as the actual collection of tolls, even if the plaintiff demanded the increase of the " toll" due to the increase in operating expenses, or the defendant demanded the reduction of the " toll" on the ground that the corporate tax rate has been lowered, since the defendant paid the plaintiff a financial subsidy pursuant to Article 52 of the concession agreement in accordance with the "minimum revenue guarantee", the profits that the plaintiff acquired by maintaining a certain amount of the profits that the plaintiff acquired shall not affect the plaintiff who increased or decreased the toll for 20 years during which the minimum operating revenue is guaranteed).

6. The following is added to the portion of the first instance court's 12 to 9-10 financial model. (2) In principle, in order to incorporate the reduction rate of corporate tax into the financial model by an agreement between the parties, the following circumstances, i.e., the defendant would reflect the reduced rate of corporate tax upon the amendment of Corporate Tax Act 1 to the plaintiff on February 25, 2009. However, the plaintiff would not have an effect of reducing the rate of corporate tax 70 billion won in the first instance court's financial model 70 billion won. (3) The defendant would not have an effect of reducing the rate of corporate tax 10 billion won in the first instance court's financial model 70 billion won. (4) The defendant would not have an effect of reducing the rate of corporate tax 10 billion won in the second instance court's financial model 50 billion won in the second instance court's financial model 70 billion won in the first instance court's financial support model 60 billion won. (4) The defendant would not have an effect of reducing the rate of corporate tax 1000 billion won in the court's decision.

○ Part 12 of the 12th Judgment of the first instance court provides that a person shall have the right to withhold the amount of money. The following shall be added:

As seen earlier, as long as the Defendant can require the Plaintiff to reflect the effect of the reduction of corporate tax.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be just and it shall be dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge and judges shall be appointed.

Judges Gangseo-gu

Judges Nam-yang