Suwon District Court-2014-Guhap-57639 (2016.05.04)

The Plaintiff’s tax burden was reduced due to changes in the golf membership type, and the Plaintiff’s tax burden was abandoned to the extent that the gains from transfer are subject to wrongful calculation.

Since the Plaintiff’s tax burden was reduced due to the change in golf membership type, and the Plaintiff’s tax burden was waived, transfer margin is subject to wrongful calculation. It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff distributed abnormal profits with economic rationality in light of sound social norms and commercial practices to related corporations and reduced the Plaintiff’s corporate tax burden.

Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act

Seoul High Court-2016-Nu-48012 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

AAA Corporation

○ Head of tax office

on 15, 2017

on October 29, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 677,951,340 for the business year 2008 against the plaintiff on February 14, 2013 exceeds KRW 501,816,423 of the disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 677,951,340 for the business year 208, the amount exceeding KRW 463,276,499 of the disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 1,070,772,540 for the business year 209, the amount exceeding KRW 463,276,499 of the disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 1,266,793,670 for the business year 201, shall be revoked in

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this Court's ruling are as follows: (a) use some of the contents and add some of them;

Except as otherwise provided for in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

this section shall be quoted in accordance with the text of this section.

Parts to be dried or added.

The first instance court's 7th trial's 6th trial's 7th trial's 7th trial's 'the first instance court' has been followed as follows.

This resulted in the same result as anti-restrictions on the repayment of, or non-existence of, rent that the plaintiff has not been in existence ***, a special relationship corporation ****, etc.

1) On February 14, 2013, the Plaintiff initially claimed the original claim that “the Defendant imposed corporate tax of 677,951,340 won for the business year 2008, corporate tax of 1,070,772,540 won for the business year 209, corporate tax of 4,755,200 won for the business year 2010, corporate tax of 4,755,200 for the business year 2010, and corporate tax of 1,266,793,670 won for the business year 201,” but the Plaintiff reduced the claim in the trial as above.

F.

○ Since the 4th sentence of the 8th judgment of the first instance court is a majority, the following shall be added in the following notes:

2) On January 201, 201, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay the sales agency fee of KRW 3 billion to **** the sales agency of the hotel*** the sales agency of the hotel?****** the sales agency of the registered golf membership issued by the Plaintiff through the member exchange, changing the terms and conditions of the benefits of the membership after purchasing the registered golf membership through the member exchange to the higher price as the right of the non-registered membership, thereby exempting the Plaintiff from the obligation to pay the sales agency fee.

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.