The target corporation (Attorney Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of Eastern Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2008Guhap18212 decided June 10, 2010

June 3, 2011

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended in the trial is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of appeal, the part arising from the Plaintiff’s appeal (including the costs arising from extension of claim) is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the part arising from the Defendant’s appeal is assessed against the Defendant

1. Purport of claim

A. The primary purport of the claim

(1) On September 1, 2006, the part which exceeds 694,723,835 won (the plaintiff seems to have been written in error) among the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of 8,270,322,914 (the amount of KRW 8,270,322,916) for the business year 200 against the plaintiff (the plaintiff shall be deemed to have been written in error); the part which exceeds 6,708,97,034 won among the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of 8,326,760,717 (the plaintiff shall be written in the trial) for the business year 200, the amount which exceeds 6,708,977,034 won (the plaintiff shall be written in the trial) of corporate tax of 21,585,242,51 won for the business year 204, the part of the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of 18,313,058,3757.36

(2) The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on December 9, 2006 against the plaintiff is revoked.

B. Preliminary purport of claim

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on December 9, 2006 against the plaintiff shall be revoked as to the claim for correction of corporate tax for the 2000 and 2002 business year.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

(1) As to the main claim

(A) The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

(B) The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 8,270,322,914 of corporate tax for the business year 200 on September 1, 2006 against the Plaintiff and KRW 7,820,394,301 of corporate tax for the business year 200, KRW 2,084,074,885 of corporate tax for the business year 2003, KRW 21,585,242,241 of corporate tax for the business year 204 and KRW 1,560,241 of the imposition of KRW 1,560,241 of corporate tax for the business year 200 and KRW 6,478,542,67 of the imposition of KRW 10,536,743 of corporate tax for the business year 202, and KRW 6,478,542,67 of the imposition of KRW 77 of corporate tax for the business year 2002.

(C) The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on December 9, 2006 against the plaintiff on the claim for correction of corporate tax for the business year 2001 shall be revoked.

(2) As to the conjunctive claim

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on December 9, 2006 against the plaintiff shall be revoked as to the claim for correction of corporate tax for the business year 200 and 2002.

B. Defendant

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court regarding this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for adding the following contents to the 15th 20th 20th 15th 20th 20th 20th 20th 20th 15th 20th 2000. Thus, this Court cited this as it is in accordance with

2. The addition;

In addition, even if the portion of the cost appropriated in the business year 2002-204, as alleged by the Plaintiff, is accurately and accurately corresponding to the sales amount excessively appropriated in the business year 2000, 2001, and the accounting amount, it is merely an accounting amount of the Plaintiff’s overestimated sales amount for the business year 2001, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the tax base and tax amount of the business year 2000, 2001, which included the portion of the cost appropriated in the processed accounting amount, had already been excessively excessive because it was merely an accounting amount later subdivided.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and all appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed, and the plaintiff's claims expanded in the trial are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)