Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap72040 ( October 16, 2015)

2014west 1250 (No. 13, 2014)

Construction expenses are capital expenditures, excessive rental fees, labor expenses in excess of personnel expenses in joint business, and overseas travel expenses should be excluded from deductible expenses.

The excess of the personnel expenses of the joint business shall be excluded from the deductible expenses, the construction expenses shall be immediately depreciated as they fall under the capital expenditures, and the excessive rent paid to the related party shall be applied by the wrongful act and the overseas expenses shall not be included in the deductible expenses.

Article 26 (Non-Inclusion of Excessive Expenses in Deductible Expenses)

2015Nu53437 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

OOO Co., Ltd.

O Head of tax office

National Rotations

December 10, 2015

January 21, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Each disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 28,898,340 for the business year 2008, corporate tax of KRW 33,632,260 for the business year 2009, corporate tax of KRW 169,892,510 for the business year 201, and corporate tax of KRW 116,341,92 for the business year 201, shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, and thus, it is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts used for cutting.

○ 17 is applicable to capital expenditures in accordance with Section 17 of the title “(23).” The following is added: “A’s statement of No. 23-1 to 3 submitted by the appellate court alone is insufficient to reverse the recognition).”

○○ KRW 68,847,516 of the prescribed rental fee of the 16th 10th 16th "(s)" is added to the following "(s) of the prescribed rental fee of the 68,847,516th 16th "(s)" (in this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is a value under Article 89(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, so it is legitimate to calculate the above reasonable rental fee in accordance with Article 89(4)1 of the above agreement; hereinafter the same shall apply)", and the contents of the relevant

2. Conclusion

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