Whether key costs constitute entertainment expenses

Since the sales incentive of this case cannot be deemed to be normally required in relation to the sale of goods under commercial practice, it constitutes entertainment expenses, not incidental expenses for sales.

Article 25 (Non-deductible Expenses of Entertainment Expenses)

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

제1심 판결을 취소한다. 피고가 별지 부과처분 내역표 기재 각 부과처분일에 주식회사 ★★★★텔레콤에 대하여 한 각 부과처분 중 다투지 않는 세액란 기재 각 금액을 초과하는 부분의 부과처분을 모두 취소한다.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the part which is added or replaced as stated in the following 2.3. Thus, this court's explanation is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used for addition or change;

(a) On the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the term "Plaintiff" shall be replaced by the term "inward company".

(b) by inserting in part 6 of the "founded for recognition" as stated in Section 3, Section 6, the phrase "as stated in Category 10".

C. On December 29, 200, the full text is amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970, Dec. 31, 1998."

(d)be changed from 7 pages 18 to 9 pages 2 as follows:

Article 89 (1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree shall not apply to the business year to which the former Enforcement Decree applies where assets are leased to a person with a special relationship under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and Article 89 (4) 1 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree (the amount calculated by multiplying the amount calculated by subtracting the key money or deposits received in connection with the provision of the relevant assets from the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the market value of the relevant assets less the key money or deposits received in connection with the provision of the assets by the fixed deposit interest rate) and the amount prescribed in subparagraph 1 (b) of the same subparagraph [the fixed deposit interest rate shall not exceed the scope of depreciation amount (which shall be limited to the standard lifespan and the corresponding depreciation rate and the depreciation method calculated under the provisions of Article 26 (4) and expenses incurred by maintaining and managing the relevant assets, such as public charges, repair expenses, etc.) of the relevant assets, whichever is larger, shall be deemed the reasonable rental fee for the relevant assets, and the amount of the fixed deposit interest rate under Article 89 (1) and (2) 9 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree shall not be applied.

In the case of this case where there are cases of leasing machinery of this case or there is no data on the fact that there is an appraisal value of rent, and thus, it is not possible to apply Article 89(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree and Article 89(4)1 of the former Enforcement Decree, as seen earlier, the Defendant calculated the appropriate rent for the machinery of this case in accordance with Article 89(4)1 of the former Enforcement Decree for the business year 1999 and 2000 (the reasonable rent for the business year 199 and 2000 is calculated based on the depreciation cost calculated by reflecting the service life of four years), and there is no illegality in calculating the reasonable rent.

In addition, the defendant calculated the appropriate rent for the machinery of this case by applying Article 25(1) of the State Property Act and Article 26(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act to the scope of market price for the business year of 1998 without the same provision as Article 89 of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Since the above rate of rent for the machinery of this case was set at the most reasonable level by comprehensively considering the land price and rent level for the state property owned by the government in general private economic sector, the above rate of rent for the machinery of this case is not erroneous by applying the above rate of fee for the machinery of this case.

E. On the 10th page 10, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was denied even though the non-party company was paid a sales incentive separate from the initial agreement, is not proven, and even in the case of family affairs, there is no impediment to deeming the instant sales incentive as entertainment expenses.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.