Jeonju District Court-2013-Guhap-1635 (O. 24, 2015)

2013 depth 51 (201. 04.11)

Whether the Plaintiff constitutes a small or medium enterprise under Article 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

The Plaintiff was amended by the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises on December 27, 2005, prior to the enforcement of the amended Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act was already postponed by the taxable year of 2006 and the next three taxable years. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act retroactively applies to the Plaintiff.

Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation

Gwangju High Court-2015-Nu-641 ( October 26, 2015)

○○ Co., Ltd.

○ Head of tax office

Jeonju District Court Decision 2013Guhap1635 Decided 24, 2015

2015.21

oly 26, 2015

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing corporate tax of 2009 against the Plaintiff on July 27, 201 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for any dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

○ Of the judgment of the first instance court, the shares of the second and the first and the second and the second and the first and the second and the second and the second and the first and the second types of shares shall be considered as shares to be issued. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the second and third types of shares of the second and the second types of shares shall be considered as shares to be issued.

3. The addition;

A. The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff’s establishment period of corporate tax liability for business year 2006 is September 30, 2006, and the statutes applicable to the determination of illegality of taxation are the laws at the time of establishment of tax liability. Therefore, the applicable laws and regulations to be applied to the instant disposition are the amended Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19329, Feb. 9, 2006; hereinafter “amended Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act”). Under the amended Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the Plaintiff is not a small or medium enterprise due to the amendment of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Special Taxation, and thus,

B. Determination

In addition, the part of "the amendment of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act" under Article 2 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act shall be deemed to apply to the case where the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises enters into force on February 9, 2006 under Article 1 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. Since the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises was amended on December 27, 2005, prior to the enforcement of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act was already postponed as a small and medium enterprise for the taxable year of 2006 and the subsequent taxable year of 3 years under the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted because it is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.