Suwon District Court 2010Guhap10953 ( October 06, 2011)

National Tax Service Review Corporation 2010-003 (2010.05.04)

(2) The amount of such stock investment shall be the amount of

In light of the fact that profits from stock investment in the name of the representative director are not verified as reflected in the accounting books of the corporation, etc., it is difficult to view that the office of business affairs falls under the amount of provisional payment, and that the tax authority expressed its intent to exempt the Plaintiff from corporate tax or granted such trust, it does not violate the principle of

2011Nu4666. Revocation of revocation of disposition to impose corporate tax

XX Composition Co., Ltd.

O Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap10953 Decided January 6, 2011

June 3, 2011

June 10, 201

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 revoke the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 608,159,500 on December 1, 2009 against the plaintiff on December 1, 2009.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this decision are as follows: (a) except for the determination in paragraph (2) on the matters that the plaintiff asserts additionally in the trial, it is cited in the judgment of the first instance.

2. Determination on the additional argument

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Tax authorities paid corporate tax in good faith during the period of the Plaintiff, and in particular, in the business year 2007, the Plaintiff imposed corporate tax for the business year from 2005 to 2007, excluding the business year 2003 and 2004, taking into account the Plaintiff’s strict property loss and operating loss in light of the circumstances. Accordingly, the Plaintiff knew that the tax authorities officially and explicitly expressed that it would be exempted from corporate tax for the business year 2003 and 2004, and trusted that it was imposed by the tax authorities to additionally impose corporate tax for the business year from 2005 to 2007.

The Defendant’s disposition imposing the corporate tax of this case is unlawful against the principle of trust protection by neglecting the Plaintiff’s reasonable expectations and trust.

B. Determination

In general, in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of the protection of trust to the act of an administrative agency, first, the administrative agency must express an individual's public opinion that is the subject of trust to the individual, second, there should be no reason attributable to the individual for the trust that the statement of opinion of the administrative agency is justifiable, third, the individual should have trusted that the statement of opinion was made, third, the administrative agency should have conducted any act against the above statement of opinion, fourth, the administrative agency should have made a disposition contrary to the above statement of opinion so that the interests of the individual who trusted that the statement of opinion would be infringed, and last, when taking an administrative disposition in accordance with the above statement of opinion, it should not be likely to seriously undermine the public interest or legitimate interests of a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du8684, Sept. 28, 20

The sole basis of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the tax authorities including the Defendant expressed to the Plaintiff the intention to exempt the Plaintiff from the corporate tax in the year 2003 and 2004 from the subject of collection, or there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

Therefore, the plaintiff's argument that it violates the principle of trust protection is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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