Cheongju District Court 2010Guhap2024 (201.06.09)

National Tax Service Review Corporation 2010-0015 (24. 2010)

The deficit of the Geumsan branch may be deducted from the income of the South Korean head office.

In the North Korean Agreement, there is no possibility that double taxation will be problem because there is no tax payable in the event of loss, and the problem of double benefit due to carryover of loss should be resolved by the Corporate Tax Act with explicit provisions related thereto, and it emphasizes only excessive taxation authority to avoid the loss incurred in the North Korean permanent establishment on the sole basis of such concerns.

(Cheongju)Revocation of revocation of a request for revision of corporate tax, etc.

AAAAAA Corporation

Head of Cheongju Tax Office

Cheongju District Court Decision 2010Guhap2024 Decided June 9, 201

March 22, 2012

May 10, 2012

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on December 28, 2009 regarding the corporate tax belonging to the business year of 2008 and the special tax on rural communities shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court cited the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the entry, as follows, in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

C. On June 30, 2003, "No. 14 of the 5th judgment of the first instance court" was sentenced to June 30, 2003.

O 5th 15th 15th 15th 5th 5th 5th 10th 2th 2th 200.

I would like to add the following contents to the 6th sentence of the first instance court, the 19th sentence, the 6th sentence, the 19th sentence, the South Korean Corporate Tax Act.

In principle, the defendant's provision of Article 22 of the Agreement is adopted in the ordinary tax treaty as to double taxation exemption method, and in the case of complete income exemption method, it is argued that it is not considered by the waiver of the right to taxation of the resident country in the case of losses, i.e., the following circumstances recognized by the entire purport of pleading, i., it is difficult to see the provision of Article 22 of the Agreement as the same as that of the tax treaty, and ii) it is difficult to see that the agreement of this case is adopted in the way to prevent double taxation in the ordinary tax treaty, and that it is not necessary to uniformly treat losses even if the agreement of this case is adopted in the way to prevent double taxation, and that it is difficult to see that the agreement of this case is not a new one to see that it would be exempt from taxation in the country of residence, and that it would be difficult to see that it would be in accordance with the concept of double taxation exemption method or tax exemption method of the tax exemption method of North Korea.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.