Busan District Court 2013Guhap20524

The claim and burden of proof on the market price, which is the standard for application of the denial of wrongful calculation, are on the tax authority.

The Plaintiff’s assertion that the interest rate of subordinated loans in this case was calculated in an objective and reasonable manner is contrary to the established legal doctrine that the tax authority has the responsibility to assert and prove the market price, which is the basis for applying the avoidance of wrongful calculation under Article 52(1) of the Corporate Tax Act, and thus,

Article 52 (Disqualified Calculation)

2014Nu22380 Revocation of imposition disposition of corporate tax, etc.

AAA Corporation

BB Director of the Tax Office

December 18, 2015

January 15, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

the Gu Office's place of service and place of service

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s business of 9,188,834 won, and 2010 for the business year 2009 against the Plaintiff on January 6, 2012

Each disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 1,369,617,185 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 in this case is as follows: "Defendant" in the first instance court's judgment Nos. 10, 9, 26, and 11 in the first instance court's judgment No. 15; "National Treasury Bonds" in the first instance judgment No. 9; "National Treasury Bonds" in the first instance judgment No. 9; "19.3 billion won" in the 17 first instance judgment No. 9; and "19.3 billion won" in the first7 first instance judgment is as "9.3 billion won"; and therefore, it is identical to the ground for the first instance judgment except for adding the following matters. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2)

2. Additional determination

The defendant asserts in the trial that ① if the interest rate of 20% higher than the interest rate of the party loan is recognized as the normal market price of the subordinate loan, the above interest rate should be proven to fall under the market price, but there is no proof to this effect. ② The subordinated loan of this case does not have any substantial difference with the senior loan of this case, and there is no substantial risk of bonds, and thereby adding a certain risk premium to the senior loan interest rate of this case on the ground that there is no substantial risk of bonds, and the disposition of this case is legitimate, which calculated the market price of the interest rate of the subordinate loan of this case as 13.15% without reflecting the MRG attempted risk premium of the plaintiff's assertion

The argument that the Plaintiff is liable to present that the interest rate of the subordinated loan in this case was calculated in an objective and reasonable manner is inconsistent with the established legal principle that there is a liability to assert and prove the market price, which is the criteria for the application of the denial of wrongful calculation under Article 52 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act, and thus, cannot be accepted. ② The subordinated loan in this case is in the intrinsic difference between the priority loan in this case and its payment terms, redemption period, security, etc., and the interest rate of the subordinated loan in this case is deemed as the basic interest rate, and it is difficult to calculate the appropriate interest rate of the subordinated loan in the way of simply adding a certain risk premium. The Defendant did not present reasonable grounds on the calculation method of each interest rate of the subordinated loan in this case, which is added to the interest rate of the senior loan in this case, the junior loan in this case, the junior loan in this case, the interest rate of the senior loan in this case, the interest rate of the senior loan in this case, the interest rate of the senior loan in this case, and the changes in this agreement.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.