Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap64698 (2015.05)

The sole reason of the lending of the city construction is that it is not related to the business and is subject to the avoidance of wrongful calculation.

(1) The sole ground of the loan of a construction project is that it is not related to the business in light of the details and scale of the loan, the current status of the project, and the financial status. Since there is no economic rationality, it is subject to the avoidance of wrongful calculation.

Article 28 (Non-Inclusion of Interest Paid in Loss) of Corporate Tax Act and denial of wrongful calculation

2015Nu48589 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

AAA Corporation

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap64698 decided June 5, 2015

October 29, 2015

November 12, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The legitimate amount of tax in each tax disposition stated in the attached Form that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff is initial

The excessive part shall be revoked in all.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this Court's ruling are as follows, and therefore, the reasons for this Court's ruling is as follows:

It shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts used for cutting.

○ 4 by inserting the terms and conditions of the Fifth line from the fourth bottom of the Fifth line, the following:

Article 1 (2) of the Convention on Promotion of Implementation of the Housing Construction Project) shall be added.

○ 6. The following shall be added to “used 14.”

[A. According to the statement in Eul evidence 6 (Contract for Transfer and Acquisition of Corporation), DB and DB acquired all assets including BB's shares and business rights at KRW 00 billion, and BB agreed to adjust all the accounts payable to PN, which is the former shareholder of BB, and KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00.

○ The following shall be added to the 6th page 18 of that title:

[Contract for the Implementation of Construction Projects of ○○ Dong-dong Multi-Family Housing on June 20, 2007 (Evidence 4-1) 1

Paragraph 2 of Article 2 does not state that “A” (the plaintiff refers to the plaintiff) is subject to an order of construction works; on the other hand, it does not state that

Article 1 Section 2 of the Agreement on the Implementation of Projects for the Construction of Multi-Family Housing (Evidence A No. 4-2) dated January 4, 2008

subsection (including the above contents)

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.