Article 20 of the Corporate Tax Act standards for determining whether it is an unfair act

Whether an act or calculation of a corporation is subject to avoidance as an unfair act under Article 20 of the Corporate Tax Act because it is recognized that the tax burden on the corporation's income has been unjustly reduced in the transaction with the person with a special relation shall be determined in the absence of justifiable reasons other than tax mitigation in the light of social norms and commercial customs in the light of the reasonable act as an economic person.

Article 20 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 46(2)7 and 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

Mayang Refriger Company

Head of Seogsan Tax Office

The disposition of imposition of corporate tax of 6,525,65 won and defense tax of 1,129,689 won against the plaintiff on November 19, 1981, which was made by the defendant against the plaintiff on November 19, 1981, shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 4 of the Plaintiff’s tax amount calculated by deducting the above amount of corporate tax from 1981 to 2. 7. 1. 5 of the total amount of corporate tax imposed on the Plaintiff’s 1. 4. 6 months after deducting the above amount of corporate tax from 1966, 196, 2. 4. 5 of the total amount of corporate tax imposed on the Plaintiff’s 7. 5th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 66th 196th 14th 6th 122. 7th 122 of the Plaintiff 122

Although Nonparty 1 was in a position of the Plaintiff’s special party, it is inevitable for the Plaintiff to recover the sales amount of 50 percent or more of the above sales amount from Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 3’s 40 percent of the sales amount for the above 40-month period, and the Plaintiff was not under a special condition for 3 months after the above 40-month period. This part of the Defendant’s taxation disposition is unreasonable, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s sales amount was 80 tons of the sales amount for the above 40-month period, and the Plaintiff’s sales amount was 100 tons of the sales amount for the above 40-month period, and the Plaintiff’s sales amount was 100 tons of the sales amount for the above 7-month period, and the Plaintiff’s sales amount was 100 tons of the sales amount for the above 7-month period, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was an unfair reason for the Plaintiff’s exclusion of the sales amount for the above 9-month period for the above 10-month period.

Thus, on November 19, 1981, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on November 19, 1981, seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 6,525,655 and defense tax of KRW 1,129,689 against the plaintiff.

Judge Seo-soci (Presiding Judge)