beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 165,027,130 of the corporate tax for the business year 2014 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2015 is 42,246.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On March 30, 2015, pursuant to Article 19-2(1) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 19-2(1)8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Plaintiff reported the corporate tax for the business year 2014 by adding the loans of KRW 490,000,000 (hereinafter “instant loans”) and KRW 36,000 (the book value of KRW 180,000,000; hereinafter “instant stocks”) to the bad debt and the marketable investment loss of securities, respectively.
B. As a result of the corporate integration investigation conducted around September 1, 2015, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff had 60% of the shares issued B as of the end of 2013, and deemed B as a related party, deemed B as a non-deductible party, and decided to add the bad debts related to the instant loan and the investment loss of the instant shares to non-deductible losses, and decided to add the amount of KRW 33,810,000 as to the instant loan to gross income, and added or notified the Plaintiff of KRW 165,027,130 (including additional taxes) of corporate tax for the business year 2014.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). C.
On February 25, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the request on June 1, 2016.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 3, the purport of whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff paid the down payment and the intermediate payment to C, which is the actual operator of B, in accordance with the prior trade agreement on the prospective site for filling-in, and received the shares issued by C from C to secure this. It is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff acquired the shares of this case. The Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for setting up against B, such as transfer of title, and thus has no validity as a transfer of shares. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not a specially related person of B, and the instant disposition should be revoked accordingly. 2) The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes a specially related person of B.