Gwangju District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-1121 (2.08, 2018)

The industrial activities of purchasing steam from outside and supplying it to users through piping facilities constitute steam and hot water supply business, not wholesale and goods brokerage business.

The industrial activities that purchase steam from outside to supply to users through piping facilities fall under the steam and hot water supply business, not wholesale and goods brokerage business, and thus, the standard service life of each type of business should be applied 20 years when calculating depreciation costs.

Article 23 of the Corporate Tax Act

2018Nu4419 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Corporate Tax

DK, Inc.

00. Head of tax office

Gwangju District Court Decision 2017Guhap1121 Decided October 08, 2018

June 21, 2018

August 23, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. On January 5, 2015, the imposition disposition that exceeds the already paid tax amount shall be revoked by the defendant against the plaintiff on January 5, 2015.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the first instance except for the amendment of the judgment of the first instance and additional determination as set forth in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

Part to be amended.

○○ 2-Class 12, " March 4, 2015," is called " March 1, 2015," respectively.

○○ 3rd 8th 8th 'after', ‘6,041,967,670 won in excess of the depreciation period from the business year 2009 to the business year 2013, and add ‘6,000 won in deductible expenses' on January 5, 2015.

○, on the fourth page, ‘53 last '53', and next '2. 1 February 2008' is added.

○ 5, 7 pages 5, by inserting 9 and 10 evidence, the following is added to 'the entry of No. 9 and 10 evidence', and 'the first 6th 11 letter' added:

8. If the 8th Korean Standard Industrial Classification provides that "the activities of producing heat, steam, or hot water for heating, power, or other purposes" and "the activities of directly supplying steam and hot water to users by piping facilities" are 0. The 9th Korean Standard Industrial Classification, which is revised and applied in this case, provides that "the activities of directly supplying steam and steam water for 0 purposes" are not only those of producing steam, steam, air conditioning, or air conditioning, but also those of supplying steam and steam facilities for 0 purposes to the 30th Korean Standard Industrial Classification, which are not only those of supplying steam and steam facilities separately from the 30th Amendment, but also those of supplying them to the 3th Amendment Korea Standard Industrial Classification, which are interpreted as "the activities of directly supplying steam and steam facilities by the 30th Amendment of Korean Standard Industrial Classification."

Article 48 (Reduction, Exemption, etc. of Additional Taxes) (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22577 of Dec. 30, 2010), the government added "where an additional tax is to be imposed pursuant to this Act or any other tax-related Act, if the grounds for such imposition fall under the grounds for extension of the due date under Article 6 (1) or a taxpayer has justifiable grounds for failure to perform his/her duty, the relevant additional tax shall not be imposed."

2. Additional determination

The plaintiff asserts that the project of this case constitutes wholesale and product brokerage under the Korean Standard Industrial Classification 9, in light of the purport of the Act on the Integrated Management of Environmental Pollution Facilities stipulating steam, cold and hot water and air control supply business as an industry subject to integrated management.

Article 6(1) of the Act on the Integrated Control of Environmental Pollution Facilities provides that "any person who intends to install and operate emission facilities, etc. at any of the following places of business (hereinafter referred to as "place of business subject to integrated management") among the places of business that are prescribed by Presidential Decree as having a significant impact on the environment shall obtain permission from the Minister of Environment." Article 2(1)1 provides that "a place of business that discharges at least 20 tons of air pollutants prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, among air pollutants referred to in subparagraph 1 (a) of Article 2," and Article 2(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the business subject to integrated management (353) of the same Act provides that "the business that generates steam, cold and hot water and air control (353)" as a type of business subject to integrated management, but the business that discharges steam, cold and hot water and air pollutants at least 20 tons a year shall be excluded from the business that discharges air pollutants subject to integrated management, and thus, the business that discharges air pollutants at least 20 tons and air pollutants per year.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff supplied steam produced without producing the steam to the user using piping facilities and generated and emitted air pollutants not less than 20 tons of a year (the Plaintiff also stated that the Plaintiff does not completely generate air pollutants because the Plaintiff’s business was not included in the process of producing steam on December 19, 2017, in the preparatory brief and the statement of grounds of appeal, as of December 19, 2017). The sole reason why the Plaintiff did not designate it as a type of business subject to integrated management is that the business performed by the Plaintiff does not constitute steam, cold and hot water and air

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion 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 just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.