Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Gu Partnership-72590 ( October 16, 2015)

Non-deductible of the payment fee, non-deductible of the interest paid in no business

Even if a corporation paid the cost of securing management rights to the existing shareholders as a business-related fee in the course of allocating the profit acquired by the remodeling project to the shareholders, if the nature of the fee is the cost to be borne by the shareholders who are the sole shareholders, it shall not be included in the expenses of the corporation, and the bonus disposal

Article 19 (Scope of Deductible Expenses)

Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

2015Nu6933, revocation of disposition of imposing corporate tax, etc.

주식회사 ㅁㅁㅁㅁㅁ

ㅇㅇ세무서장

August 24, 2016

September 21, 2015

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the director of the tax office of defendant ○○, which exceeds the following order for cancellation, shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to

The imposition of corporate tax of KRW 181,510,70 (including additional tax) against the Plaintiff on May 2, 2012 by the head of ○○ Tax Office shall be revoked on May 2, 2012.

2. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants and the remainder of Defendant ○○○ Tax Office’s appeal are all dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant ○○ Director of the Regional Tax Office are borne by the Plaintiff. Of the total costs of litigation arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant ○○ Director, 5/6 are the Plaintiff, and the remainder is Defendant ○○○

The Secretary shall each bear the expenses of the Secretary.

1. Purport of claim

Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office’s disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 1,05,463,250 (including additional tax) for the business year 2008 against the Plaintiff on May 2, 2012 and imposing corporate tax of KRW 11,731,564 and corporate tax of KRW 181,510,70 (including additional tax) for the business year 2010; Defendant ○○ Head of the regional tax office’s disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 2008; Defendant 2008 for the business year (income amount of KRW 2,147,000,000); for each business year (income amount of KRW 84,00; income amount of KRW 77,373,785) for the business year 2010 (income amount of KRW 77,785).

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke the below among the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

Defendant ○○○ Tax Office’s disposition of notice of change in income amount of KRW 1,05,463,250 (including additional tax) imposed on the Plaintiff on May 2, 2012 and of KRW 81,489,28 among the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 1,05,463,250 (including additional tax) and of KRW 2008 (income amount: 2,147,000,000), 209 (income amount: 84,00,000), and 2010 (income amount: 7,373,785) imposed on the Plaintiff on the same day by the director of the regional tax office of ○○○ Tax Office as Defendant ○○○○ on the same day.

B. Defendant ○○ Head of Tax Office

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ○○ Tax Office shall be revoked, and the above revoked part shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

On May 2, 2012, Defendant 00 of the tax office’s imposition of corporate tax of KRW 10,000,000 (including additional tax) against the Plaintiff for the business year 2008, and the imposition of KRW 10,000,000 (including additional tax) for the business year 2008, and the imposition of corporate tax of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional tax) for the business year 2010, and the notification of changes in the amount of income as stated in the separate sheet against the Plaintiff by the director of the regional tax office

1. Partial citement of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance: (a) the plaintiff's assertion, (b) the relevant laws and regulations, and (c) the relevant laws and regulations, 1) with respect to the instant fee; and (c) the portion concerning the instant fee, etc. concerning the instant payment, as follows, is partially dismissed; and (d) the portion concerning the “political tax amount” is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the newly accepted portion as follows 2 and (3). Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ 5 9 6 o.m. on the bottom of 4 o.m., “investment” shall be made “(Article 3(1)).”

At the bottom of ○ 4, 3, "," "(Article 3, paragraph 2)".

○ At the bottom of 4 pages, a "content" shall be read as a "content (Article 4, subparagraph 2)".

The "239,936,136 won" of 6 pages 3 shall be "193,98,935 won".

2. As to each of the funds of this case

A. 8 billion won

1) Facts of recognition

(1) On August 22, 2005, the Plaintiff added real estate development, lease, and sale business to the corporate register as a target business.

(2) The FF corporation is a company in fact operated by the ○○○○○, and its major shareholders are comprised of the ○○○○’s spouse’s ○○○○, his or her children protectionA, BB,CC, his or her dong KimA, RA, etc.

(3) On April 25, 2008, K Co., Ltd., M Asset Management Co., Ltd., F Co., Ltd., F Co., Ltd., and R Co., Ltd. agreed to jointly carry out the first LFriririririririririririri (SPC), a special purpose corporation (PFV) under the Corporate Tax Act, to jointly carry out the first LFriririririririririririri (hereinafter “instant joint business agreement”). Article 2(1) of the above agreement provides that the period of the firstririririririririririririririririririri business is from May 2008 to December 2008. They concluded on April 28, 2008, M private equity real estate investment trust Co., Ltd., Ltd., a trustee company under subparagraph 5 of MFririririri (hereinafter “SPC”) with DFriririri (hereinafter “DF life investment company”).

(4) On April 30, 2008, the SS Bank added the secured debt to the instant joint agreement, and concluded a contract between FF Co., Ltd. and RR Co. and the F Co., Ltd. to set up a pledge on behalf of the SS Bank for the shares of 11.20,000 shares of the RF interest and the RF interest shares of 200,000 shares of the RF interest owned by the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant collateral agreement”).

(5) On September 24, 2008, MF interest companies violated the obligations under the instant joint project agreement with FF interest companies, namely, (a) on June 30, 2008, 514,79,263 won in default (Article 10(4)), (b) by August 31, 2008 (Article 11 subparag. 2), (c) additional security obligations, etc. (Article 11 subparag. 7), and (d) on the ground of the violation of obligations to transfer all the authorizations and permits owned by A to RF interest tanks within 14 days after the date of concluding the sales contract, and the plan to resolve the violation and to secure the effectiveness of the funds was demanded to be resolved by September 30, 2008 on the ground of the violation of obligations (Article 10(6)).

(6) On September 26, 2008, the Plaintiff lent KRW 8 billion to the F Co., Ltd. on September 25, 2013 at the annual interest rate of September 25, 2013, at the interest rate of 9% per annum, and at the interest rate of 15% per annum (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”).

(7) On October 9, 2008, MF interest rate of KRW 2.4 million (paid amount of KRW 12 billion) and primary corporate bonds (2.5 billion) owned by SS Bank and DD life insurance were notified to F Co., Ltd. of the exercise of options within two months from the date of receipt of notice under Article 16(1)2 and 5 of the instant Joint Project Agreement and Article 19(1)2 and 5 of the Shareholders Convention, and Article 19(1)2 of the Convention, and Article 19 of the Shareholders Convention, within two months from the date of receipt of notice to F Co., Ltd. of the notice under Article 16 of the said Joint Project Agreement.

(8) Nevertheless, as FF Co., Ltd. failed to pay the above purchase price within a given period, on December 10, 2008, the SS Bank demanded that the Plaintiff transfer 680,000 shares of the RF interest set owned by the Plaintiff free of charge by December 12, 2008, and notified the FF interest that the pledge will be exercised at the time of non-performance.

(9) On December 15, 2008, the SS Bank notified F Co., Ltd. of the acquisition of the instant shares by exercising a pledge on the RF interest under the instant pledge agreement. For the same reason, the SF interest transfer claim was filed on November 30, 2009.

(10) On September 26, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into the instant primary investment agreement with FF Co., Ltd. containing the following contents. The purpose of this agreement is to convert the amount of KRW 8 billion that the Plaintiff leased to F Co., Ltd., a major equity investor of F Co., Ltd., a special purpose corporation (SPC), into the amount of investment, and to conduct the business with the consent and cooperation of F Co., Ltd. in order for the Plaintiff to implement the business as the implementer of the additional L

(Special) The Plaintiff’s lending KRW 8 billion to FFriet is converted into investment, and FFriet’s major equity investors in the RFriet’s major equity investment in the development promotion district held as the implementer of the existing LFriet remodeling project (stage 1), shall give up the priority to designating the development promotion district, and shall take all measures to enable the Plaintiff to be designated as the implementer of the development promotion district for additional LFriet development (stage 2) (Article 1(1)). At the same time as this Agreement was entered into, FFriet’s shareholder who is the implementer of the existing remodeling project (stage 1), and the Plaintiff shall transfer to the Plaintiff all the rights, such as voting rights, at the time of the conclusion of this Agreement, to the Plaintiff, including the voting rights, at the general meeting of shareholders held as the implementer of the existing remodeling project (Article 1(2)2

(11) On September 26, 2008, the Plaintiff treated the instant KRW 8 billion as a long-term loan account, but replaced the instant KRW 8 billion to other investment asset accounts on September 26, 2009.

(12) On February 18, 2009, FFriet filed a claim for share certificate delivery against the SS Bank to verify that it is a shareholder of the General Shares 680,000 (the face value of KRW 5,000) issued by the RFrit. The SS Bank claimed as a counterclaim that the SS Bank is a shareholder of the said shares. The first and second instances dismissed the principal claim and declared a judgment accepting the counterclaim. The judgment became final and conclusive on October 14, 2010 (Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na12717, 12724).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 24 to 28, 39, 42, Eul evidence 5 and 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Whether it constitutes a business-related provisional payment

(A) Legal principles

Article 28(1)4(b) of the former Corporate Tax Act and Article 53(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provide that interest on loans for provisional payments paid by a corporation to a related party under Article 52(1) of the Corporate Tax Act without connection with the business of the relevant corporation shall not be included in the calculation of losses. The legislative purpose of the above provision is to prevent the aggravation of the financial structure of an enterprise through the unreasonable expansion of enterprises dependent on capital by limiting abnormal acts of lending loans to a related party, such as an affiliate, regardless of the business activities of the corporation, by providing tax disadvantage not to include the interest on loans in the calculation of losses if a corporation, which holds borrowings, has paid provisional payments, etc. to a related party without connection with the business affairs of the relevant corporation. In addition, the interest on loans paid without connection with the business affairs, cannot be deemed as expenses incurred by the corporation in response to its profits and losses, and thus, induce the sound economic activities of an enterprise through the production of corporate funds (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2005Hun-Ba75, 77,8 (combined).).

In light of the legislative intent like this, "provisional payments made without business relations" includes not only purely meaningful loans, but also loans equivalent to the nature of claims such as indemnity bonds, etc., and includes cases of providing provisional payments with interest at an appropriate interest rate unless it is related to the business. Whether the provisional payments are related to the business should be objectively determined on the basis of the purpose or business contents of the relevant corporation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du4068, Mar. 11, 2003).

(B) Determination

The Plaintiff and F Co., Ltd. do not have any dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff and F Co., Ltd. are in fact a company run by ○○○. Accordingly, F Co., Ltd. constitutes the Plaintiff’s specially related person pursuant to Article 52(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act and Article 87(1)4 and 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. Furthermore, considering the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned facts, the loans of KRW 8 billion constitute “the loans of this case to F Co., Ltd., a related party, without relation to its business details, that the Plaintiff lent the loans of KRW 8 billion to the F Co., Ltd., a related party, and constitutes “provisional payments” as prescribed by the Corporate Tax Act. Therefore, it is lawful that Defendant ○○ Tax Office’s failure to include the interest paid

(1) The Plaintiff is not in the position of joint business operators of the primary resort business, and the Plaintiff’s specially related corporations, and only falls under joint business operators, such as FFS and RFS. Therefore, at the time of lending the instant KRW 8 billion to FFS, the Plaintiff’s business contents at the time of lending the instant KRW 8 billion to FFS cannot be deemed as having any relation to the primary resort business.

(2) The instant KRW 8 billion is merely a loan to the FF Co., Ltd. and cannot be deemed as an investment. Thus, the Plaintiff’s real estate development, etc. is included in the Plaintiff’s objective business and the primary resort business constitutes real estate development cannot be deemed to be related to real estate development business, which is the objective business.

i) The loan agreement of this case only sets the lending period of five years, interest rate of 9% per annum, interest rate of 15% per annum, and interest rate of 15% per annum, but does not specify restrictions on the source of loan, etc. Therefore, it can be seen as a pure loan agreement. On the other hand, it does not include any content that can be seen as an investment loan agreement, such as the method and timing of the Plaintiff’s investment share or recovery of investment amount, and the distribution of profit (the Plaintiff asserted that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the FF Company to return the profit of 8 billion won from the profit of the primary resort business, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it).

ii) The Plaintiff was not fully involved in the operation of the first set of interest business and the distribution of profits from the instant loan after the instant loan, and the instant first investment agreement clearly states that the Plaintiff itself entered into an investment agreement by converting the existing loan of KRW 8 billion into the amount of investment, premised on the premise that the instant loan is a loan of KRW 8 billion. billion.

iii) Even if FFrit’s funds borrowed by FFrit to be used as the funds to acquire the shares of FFrit were repaid to the instant KRW 8 billion, the Plaintiff merely provided funds irrespective of its original business activities at the time of FFrit, insofar as the parties took the form of the loan.

iv) The Plaintiff, on its own, managed the instant KRW 8 billion as a long-term loan, and concluded the first investment agreement, and subsequently replaced the other investment assets account.

(3) Even if the Plaintiff intended to participate in the primary resort business around April 3, 2008, and thereafter lent KRW 8 billion to the F Co., Ltd., which participated as a first shareholder due to the completion of the primary resort business, the Plaintiff became one shareholder of the Plaintiff’s company that actually controlled and operated the said business, by which the K Co., Ltd. became one shareholder of the Plaintiff is merely a shareholder of the Plaintiff’s 1/3 share of the Plaintiff’s shares, and until around September 3, 2008, the K Co., Ltd. conducted the commercial reduction of the capital for the shares held by the N Co., Ltd. and the K Co., Ltd.’s shares by means of profit distribution of the divided resort business. As such, the plan or intent of such business participation is merely an intention of ○○ or K Co., Ltd., and cannot be deemed the Plaintiff

(4) As long as there is no evidence that the Plaintiff did not have a "financial business for the purpose of the purpose of the business and there is no evidence that the Plaintiff has been engaged in the business of lending money for the purpose of interest income, such lending is not directly contributed to the increase of sales, and it is not related to the Plaintiff

(5) In light of the fact that, around September 2008, FFriart’s financing plan should be presented in order to resolve the shortage of funds, etc., the FFriart’s financing had been interrupted before the loan of the instant KRW 8 billion; the FFriet’s affiliated companies, including FF Co., Ltd. failed to carry out the instant joint project agreement and the agreement between shareholders, such as securing funds, etc., by put put in place options, and 680,000 shares of the RFriart were owned by the SS Bank, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have aggravated its financial structure by lending the surplus funds of KRW 8 billion to the F Co., Ltd. with poor financial structure.

(6) Such a lending cannot be objectively helpful to the Plaintiff’s intended business, and if the Plaintiff and the F stock company excludes the subjective relationship, such lending cannot be deemed as a conversion of reasonable business activities.

3) Whether the instant primary investment agreement is subject to the avoidance of wrongful calculation

(A) Legal principles

Article 52(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act and Articles 88(1)6 and 89(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provide that where a corporation is deemed to have unjustly reduced the tax burden on the corporation's income by lending money without compensation to a related party, the tax authority shall regard it as a wrongful calculation and include it in the calculation of the recognized interest rate.

From the perspective of the economic person, the provision applies only to cases where it is deemed that the economic rationality was neglected due to the use of an unnatural or unreasonable calculation, and the determination of whether the economic rationality exists shall be made based on whether the transaction is abnormal when the transaction lacks economic rationality in light of sound social norms or commercial practices, taking into account the various circumstances of the transaction, and the transaction price between the non-related parties, special circumstances at the time of the transaction, etc. shall also be considered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du14257, Dec. 13, 2007).

(B) Determination

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s act of converting the instant KRW 8 billion to the investment amount by adding up the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, cannot be deemed as an unlawful calculation.

(1) As a taxpayer may choose one of the several legal relations while carrying out economic activities to achieve the same economic purpose, the tax authority shall respect the legal relationship chosen by the taxpayer, barring any special circumstance to deem it as the most unfair act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du5004, May 13, 201). Barring any special circumstance, the mere fact that F Co., Ltd is the Plaintiff’s specially related person and accounts for the instant KRW 8 billion with long-term loans in 2009 to 2010 is difficult to readily conclude that the instant first investment agreement is the most unfair act.

(2) The SS Bank and the DD bio-resources and the private real estate investment trust participated in the primary resort business. Since the primary resort business was in progress as of September 26, 2009 when the instant KRW 8 billion was converted into investment funds, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff did not immediately have the profitability of the primary resort business solely on the ground that there was no data to review the profitability at the time of converting the investment into the FF Company.

(3) In the following respect, it is difficult to deem that the instant primary investment agreement lacks economic rationality.

i) The Plaintiff leased KRW 8 billion to F Co., Ltd., but was transferred from F Co., Ltd. KRW 9 billion equivalent to KRW 1,800,000 (=1,800,000 x 5,000).

ii) The Plaintiff’s failure to perform the duty of purchase under the put option agreement requires the SS Bank to transfer shares free of charge, and the shares for which the SS Bank notified of the execution of the pledge is limited to 680,000 shares, which are some of them. Moreover, at the time of September 26, 2009, the date of the first investment agreement of this case, the SS Bank had not yet exercised put options, and thus, the execution of the pledge right of the SS Bank was not confirmed.

3) The secured obligation of the instant pledge contract is a future obligation that may arise in the event that the FF Co., Ltd. fails to perform its obligations under the instant joint project agreement and its subsidiary agreement, and if the first resort project was conducted without any problem, the pledge right established on the shares of the FF Co., Ltd., could have been extinguished. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have no particular value as a shareholder of the F Co., Ltd., who acquired the instant KRW 8 billion in return for converting it into investment funds.

iv) It is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff, prior to the instant first investment agreement, lent KRW 8 billion to F Co., Ltd. before, but the assets of the UN are not adequate, choice of the method of acquiring the said loan as one of the methods of securing the claim amounting to KRW 8 billion of the said loan by converting the said loan into the investment amount and obtaining the right as a shareholder of the RF interest rate is in excess of the economic rationality.

B. 2 billion won in the instant case

1) Facts of recognition

(1) AR Co., Ltd. is a company actually operated by the ○○○○, and the lease slip was appointed as the Plaintiff’s joint representative director on October 17, 2007, but resigned on February 1, 2010, and was appointed as the representative director in the R Co., Ltd., and resigned on October 15, 2012.

(2) On April 2, 2010, the head of the Gangwon-do ○○○ Gun designated and publicly announced the Plaintiff, R Co., Ltd., and DK as an implementer of the regional development promotion district pursuant to Article 16 of the former Balanced Regional Development and Support for Local Small and Medium Enterprises Act (amended by Act No. 10762, May 30, 201) with respect to the instant development project (○○ Gun’s notification).

(3) On May 11, 2010, the Plaintiff and TR Co., Ltd entered into a technical service agreement with CV Engineering Co., Ltd. to perform design services, implementation plans, authorization, and implementation design services to support environmental impact assessment and impact assessment, and the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 3.83 billion as service fees.

(4) The Plaintiff accounted for the instant KRW 2 billion as other invested assets in the year from 2009 to 2010.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 31, 32, 39, 51 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Determination

The fact that the Plaintiff, who received KRW 2 billion from the Plaintiff, is a company in fact managed by the ○○○○, is not a dispute between the parties, and thus, the TR Co., Ltd constitutes the Plaintiff’s specially related person pursuant to Article 52(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act and Article 87(1)4 and 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. However, in light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 2 billion to the TR Co., Ltd., which is a specially related person, cannot be subject to the avoidance of wrongful calculation. Therefore, it is unlawful that the director of the ○○○ Tax Office deemed the payment of the investment amount of KRW 2 billion as a wrongful calculation and included the recognized interest rate of KRW 2 billion in the gross income for the business year from 2009 to 2010.

(1) On November 23, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into the instant secondary investment agreement with the TR Co., Ltd. to jointly carry out the second resort business, and designated the second resort business operator with the TR Co., Ltd. as the operator of the second resort business. Since the Plaintiff used the second resort business for the initial business expenses to carry out environmental impact assessment, etc., the second resort business was carried out in conformity with the instant second resort investment agreement. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the second resort business was the largest act solely on the ground that the TR Co., Ltd. was the Plaintiff’s specially related party and was accounting for the second resort business year from 2009 to 2010.

(2) Since the second resort business is the business of developing additional resort facilities to expand the scale of the resort upon the termination of the first resort remodeling, as long as the profitability analysis on the entire resort development business was prior to the second resort remodeling, it cannot be deemed that there was no profitability review on the second resort business. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s act cannot be deemed as an abnormal act lacking economic unity solely on the ground that at the time of the second resort investment agreement in this case, the representative director of the Plaintiff and the R stock company was the same as the lease table.

(3) The Plaintiff, while paying the instant KRW 2 billion to the TR Co., Ltd. as the investment amount, agreed to receive part of the profit accrued from the primary resort business and the secondary resort business. Unless there is no evidence to deem that there was no profit from the primary and secondary resort business at the time when the instant KRW 2 billion was paid, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff invested KRW 2 billion in the instant investment without the consideration for the investment. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s act of paying the instant KRW 2 billion as the investment amount was a transaction with no economic rationality in light of sound social norms or commercial practices.

(4) The Plaintiff accounted for the instant KRW 2 billion as other invested assets in the year from 2009 to 2010.

3. Reasonable tax base and amount of tax.

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of taxation, the subject matter of adjudication is whether the tax base and tax amount notified by the tax authority exist objectively. In a case where the tax base and tax amount recognized by the disposition are excessive compared to the legitimate tax base and tax amount, the disposition of imposition is unlawful within the scope exceeding the reasonable tax base and tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6504, Mar. 28, 1989).

As seen earlier, it is legitimate to exclude the interest paid on loan equivalent to KRW 8 billion in the deductible expenses among the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year 2008, and to include the interest paid on loan equivalent to KRW 8 billion in the deductible expenses. Of the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year 2009 and 2010, the part that included each recognized interest on KRW 8 billion and KRW 2 billion in the gross income must be denied.

Accordingly, when calculating the legitimate amount of corporate tax for the business year 2010, there is no corporate tax to be notified due to the occurrence of the loss, such as the statement in the calculation table of the legitimate amount of tax. Therefore, the disposition of corporate tax for the business year 2008 is legitimate, and the disposition of corporate tax for the business year 20

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the head of ○○ Tax Office shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and all of the remaining claims against the head of ○○ Tax Office and the claim against the head of ○○ Tax Office for defendant ○○ Tax Office shall be dismissed on the ground of its reason. Since the judgment of the court of first instance partially different conclusions is unfair, the part against the head of ○○ Tax Office in excess of the part against which this court orders the cancellation shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the cancellation portion shall be dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants and the remaining appeals by