Incheon District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-52412 (Law No. 14, 2016)

Inasmuch as there exists a justifiable reason for delaying the collection of claims equivalent to the construction cost, it is not subject to the avoidance of wrongful calculation.

(1) Since a railroad station is owned by the State, the disposition of exclusion of the amount equivalent to the depreciation costs is justifiable, however, there is justifiable grounds for delaying the collection of claims equivalent to the construction costs of the railroad station facilities. Therefore, it is not subject to avoidance of wrongful calculation.

Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act

Disposition of revocation of disposition of imposing corporate tax, etc. under Seoul High School Act 2016Nu593

Then, Incheon ○○ Corporation

○ Head of tax office

Incheon District Court Decision 2015Guhap52412 Decided July 14, 2016

December 6, 2016

January 10, 2017

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

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 2,54,453,231 (including additional tax) for the business year 2007 against the Plaintiff on April 1, 2013 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant against the plaintiff on April 1, 2013

The imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2007 KRW 386,898,566 (including additional tax) shall be revoked.

B. Defendant

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding thereto shall be dismissed.

section 3.

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 the modification of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 4

○ Part 17 of the first instance court decision No. 7 of the 17th instance court decision “not” added the following:

Article 8(1) main text of the Addenda to the Construction Act provides that “The Plaintiff shall be excluded from the application of the main sentence of paragraph (1) to the land equivalent to the amount of the contribution and subsidy that the State is deemed to have invested pursuant to Article 8(2) and (3) of the Addenda to the Construction Act, and Article 8(2) of the Addenda to the Construction Act provides that the State shall be deemed to have invested in the Plaintiff on the date of the implementation of the Construction Act. As such, among the instant railroad stations, the facilities constructed by the Plaintiff with the State’s investment and subsidy shall belong to the Plaintiff pursuant to the main sentence of Article 8(1) and (2) of the Addenda to the Construction Act. However, Article 8(2) of the Addenda to the Construction Act states that the Plaintiff’s ownership belongs to the Plaintiff pursuant to the latter part of Article 8(1) of the Addenda to the Construction Act. However, since the government’s contribution and subsidy falls under the “before the implementation of the Construction Act for the Incheon ○○ Construction Corporation,” the enforcement date of the Construction Act merely applies to the land and the instant railroad station.

If so, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant is groundless, and all of them are dismissed.

each subparagraph.