Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap22099 ( November 23, 2011)

Seocho 2010Ch2169 ( October 18, 2011)

Where a loan is made to a person with a special relationship lower than the interest rate determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, it is subject to wrongful calculation.

As long as interest at a rate of 6% lower than that set by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service is received and lent to a person with a special relationship, the difference between the interest income actually received after re-determination of the interest income at an annual rate of 9% corresponding to the market price is legitimate as taxation is included in gross income for each business year, and as long as the legislator appears to have delegated the authority to correct the interest rate on the overdraft to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service in determining the overdraft interest rate, it is reasonable to

2011Nu42804 Revocation of disposition of revocation of corporate tax, etc.

XX Stock Company

Director of the Gangwon Tax Office and one other

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 201Guhap22099 decided November 23, 2011

June 15, 2012

July 20, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

The decision of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The decision of the court of first instance shall be revoked by the director of the district tax office of Gangseo-gu against the plaintiff on February 3, 2010, the corporate tax belonging to the business year of 2004, the corporate tax belonging to the business year of 2005, the corporate tax belonging to the business year of 2006, the corporate tax belonging to the business year of 2007, the corporate tax belonging to the business year of 2007, the corporate tax belonging to the business year of 2008, the corporate tax belonging to the business year of 2008, and the notification of the change in the income amount of 00 won against the plaintiff on February 3, 2010 by the director of the district tax office of Gangseo-gu shall be revoked (the plaintiff shall reduce the purport of the claim and appeal against the corporate tax belonging to the business year of 2007).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason for this decision is to dismiss "the disposition of this case" in the first instance court's 3th 15th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th.).

2. The addition;

(a) the 17th and the 18th and the third part of the judgment of the first instance;

As the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act was amended by Presidential Decree No. 19891, Feb. 28, 2007, the director of the district tax office of Gangseo-gu shall, in principle, regard the weighted average loan interest rate as the market price, not the overdraft loan interest rate, but the overdraft loan interest rate as the market price from the first loan after the enforcement of the above Enforcement Decree. However, in a case where the weighted average loan is impossible to apply self-regulation, the overdraft loan interest rate as provided by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy is exceptionally deemed to be the market price. However, in the case of the plaintiff, it is not a case where it is impossible to apply the weighted average loan interest rate to the calculation of the overdraft loan interest rate of 9% per annum in the first disposition of this case, accept the plaintiff's claim that the calculation of the overdraft loan interest rate of 2007

당초 처분과의 차액 230,262원을 감액함, 원단위 버림) 감액경정하였다(이하 나머지 법인세 부과처분 및 위 소득금액변동통지처분을 통틀어 '이 사건 처분|이라고 한다).』

B. The last part of the judgment of the first instance court 4th;

"The plaintiff (the plaintiff asserted as stated in the above paragraph 1-e) in this court, and the chief of the district tax office of Gangseo-gu accepted the purport of the above argument and corrected corporate tax for the business year of 2007 as above. Accordingly, the plaintiff reduced the purport of the claim and appeal concerning corporate tax to be reverted to the business year of 2007 as above, and did not express any specific argument concerning corporate tax to be reverted to the business year of 2008. In light of these circumstances, the plaintiff's legitimacy of the above assertion and its scope of application are related to the plaintiff's above assertion and its scope of application, and it seems that there is no other dispute between the plaintiff and the chief of the district tax office of Gangwon-gu

C. The fifth part of the judgment of the court of first instance

“However, as seen earlier, from February 28, 2007, the weighted average loan interest rate shall, in principle, be deemed as the market price, and in cases where it is impossible to apply the weighted average loan interest rate, the party loan interest rate shall be deemed as the market price).”

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed for all reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed for all reasons.