Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-7316 ( January 13, 2017),

Cho Jae-2014-Seoul Government-2297 ( June 11, 2015)

The market price of the instant prototype is likely to follow the Defendant’s assertion, and the bank of this case is subject to depreciation.

It is difficult to view that Samsung Heavy Industries, etc. donated the instant prototype to the Plaintiff without compensation on the sole basis of the circumstances alleged by the Defendant, and in view of various matters, the instant embankment is not a part of land, but a structure.

Article 23 of the former Corporate Tax Act (Non-Inclusion of Depreciation Costs)

2017Nu36313

Korean OOOC

O Head of tax office

June 29, 2017

August 31, 2017

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the claim for revocation of the imposition of corporate tax for each business year of 20O and 20O shall be dismissed.

B. The Defendant’s imposition of corporate tax for 20O.O.O. for 20O.O., the part exceeding the O,O,O,O, andO(including additional tax), among the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for 20O.O.O., and the part exceeding the O,O,O,O, andO(including additional tax) of the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for 200O business year, and the part exceeding the KRW O,O,O, andO(including additional tax) shall be revoked.

C. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. 1/10 of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Purport of claim, purport of appeal, and scope of practical inquiry of this court

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's imposition of corporate tax for 20O.O.O. for 20O.O., for the 200O business year, for the portion exceeding the O,OO,O,OO, orO(including additional taxes), for the imposition of corporate tax for 200O business year, for the portion exceeding the KRW O,OO,O,O, orO(including additional taxes), for the imposition of corporate tax for 200O business year, for the above amount exceeding the KRW O,OO,O, orO(including additional taxes), for the imposition of the KRW 200 business year tax for 20O business year, and for the imposition of the KRW O,O,O, orO(O).

2. Purport of appeal

A. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows. The defendant's disposition of imposition of the corporate tax of 20O.O.O.O., 20O., the part exceeding the O,OO,O, andOO(including additional taxes), the part of the disposition of imposition of the corporate tax of 20O, OO, OO,O,OO, and OO(including additional taxes), the part exceeding the OO,OO,OO, and OO(including additional taxes), the part of the disposition of imposition of the corporate tax of 20O business year, the imposition of the corporate tax of 20O, O,OO, and OO(including additional taxes), and the imposition of the corporate tax of 20O business year.

B. Defendant: The part against the Defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed.

3. The scope of actual adjudication of this court.

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff as to the non-Submission of the payment record among the parts exceeding the KRW 20O,OO, andOO in the disposition of corporate tax for the 20O business year was excluded from the actual scope of the judgment of this court.

1. Partial citement of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) the part of the claim for revocation of the imposition of corporate tax for each business year of 20O, 20O among the lawsuits in this case; (b) the legality of the disposition in this case; (c) the Plaintiff’s assertion; and (b) the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment in the first instance (from No. 2, No. 10 to No. 11, No. 11, No. 24 to No. 27 of the judgment in the first instance); and (c) thus, it is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The "interest paid in this case" in the first instance court's fifth, fifth, sixth, fifth, and sixth, is replaced by the "interest paid in the 200O business year" respectively.

The first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's second 3 to 5 "(the plaintiff does not dispute the interest paid for the 200O business year in this case, and only the interest paid for the 200O business year; hereinafter referred to as "the interest paid in this case")" was replaced by "(the plaintiff did not dispute the interest paid for the 20O business year from the first instance court to the 200O business year but does not dispute the appellate court

○ 5th of the final judgment of the first instance court, "OO, OO, OO, 200, OO, OO, 200, OO, 200, OO, OO, 200, OO, O,O, 200, O,O, O, 200, O,O, O, 200, O, O, O, 200, 200, O, O, O, 200, 200, 200, 200, 2000, 200, 2000, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200,00,00,00

○ To delete the 10th trial decision from 10th to 11th trial decision.

2. Parts that vary from the judgment of the first instance court;

C. Determination

1) As to the instant bank depreciation costs, etc.

A) First, we examine whether the instant bank constitutes assets subject to depreciation.

(1) In order to constitute “building” under Article 24(1)1(a) and (f) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act or “tangible fixed assets similar thereto, buildings other than buildings fixed on land must have an independent economic value by physically distinguishing the structure and form of the building from the land. In other cases, it shall not be deemed as a whole with the land, which is an asset whose value does not decline upon the lapse of time (Article 23(2) of the Corporate Tax Act). (See Supreme Court Decision 2006Du11224, May 14, 2009).

(2) Considering the following circumstances, i.e., the upper end of the bank of this case currently being used as a road, but there is no land itself capable of determining whether its structure and form are physically separated from the land. ② The land to be constructed after the completion of reclamation of the re-treatment site of this case is constructed by stone and concrete before 2000, and the land to be constructed after the completion of reclamation of the re-treatment site of this case is classified into not less than 25 years. Thus, the structure and form of the land to be constructed after the completion of reclamation of the re-treatment site of this case can be deemed to be physically divided into the land of this case. ③ The economic value of the bank of this case after the completion of reclamation of the re-treatment site of this case is likely to be required for the purpose of maintaining the value of the bank of this case, i.e., the economic value of the bank of this case after the completion of reclamation of the re-treatment site of this case.

B) Therefore, it is unlawful that the Defendant excluded the depreciation costs of the instant bank from deductible expenses during each business year of 20O and 20O.

2) As to inclusion in the calculation of earnings and losses with respect to the prototype of this case

This part of the judgment of the court is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 15 through 18, 17).

C. Sub-decision

In the event that the depreciation costs of the instant case and the inclusion in the gross income and the inclusion in deductible expenses are revoked, and the corporate tax for the 200O business year is calculated, the corporate tax for the 200O business year shall be the O,O,O,O,O, andOO as the members of the O,O, andO for the 200O business year. Therefore, the portion exceeding the aforementioned legitimate tax amount among the dispositions of the instant case shall be revoked as it is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the part of the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of the disposition imposing corporate tax for each business year of 20O and 200O is unlawful. Thus, the part seeking revocation of the disposition of this case which exceeds the aforementioned legitimate amount is justified, and the remainder is dismissed as there is no ground. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some conclusion, and it is so unfair as to accept part of the plaintiff's appeal and it is modified as ordered by the