Thempid Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Cheongok, Attorneys Gu Sea-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2008Guhap47647 Decided September 10, 2009

May 27, 2010

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. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of KRW 1,562,380,90 for the corporate tax of the business year 2004 against the plaintiff on August 13, 2006.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are reasonable, and thus, it shall be quoted as the reasons for this judgment under Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act: Provided, That the judgment on the matters additionally asserted by the plaintiff

2. The plaintiff's additional assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's additional assertion

The Plaintiff agreed to pay 1.3 billion won out of the purchase price of the instant land to Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty in the judgment of the Supreme Court), the seller of the instant land, etc. the sum of 30 square meters in total and 10 billion won in total (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) of the 5th floor and 2nd underground floor of the instant commercial building to be newly constructed and sold on the instant land. The Plaintiff issued and issued, as security, promissory notes of KRW 1.3 billion in face value. Meanwhile, Nonparty 1, etc. decided to deduct the down payment of KRW 1.85 billion in the instant sales price on the condition of full payment of the purchase price of the instant land until February 27, 2002, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder within the said period, the agreement to collect the said down payment from the Plaintiff’s real estate and the deposit claim, which was owned by the Nonparty 1,300 million won, based on the notarial deed, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the remainder of the collection order was unlawful.

B. Determination

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 14, and 16 (including additional serial numbers) and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff agreed to pay the commercial building of this case equivalent to KRW 1.3 billion as substitute material, separately from the purchase price at the time when the contract for the sale and purchase of the land was concluded with the non-party 1 on February 19, 2002, the plaintiff, braille No. 1. 2, the plaintiff's actual management owner issued to the non-party 1 on February 19, 2002 1.3 billion won at face value, 1.3 billion won at face value, 1.3 billion won at the time of payment, 1.3 billion in face value, 1.3 billion in face value, 1.5 billion in face value, 1.5 billion in face value, 200 in Seoul District Court No. 982, Feb. 19, 200; and the plaintiff did not receive the remaining down payment from the non-party 1.5 billion won in the sale order.

According to the above facts, the execution of the bill official certificate of this case is only deemed to result in the nonperformance of the agreement to pay the down payment to the commercial building of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion that the contract was to receive the down payment of KRW 1.85 million under the premise that the appropriation agreement to pay the down payment of KRW 1.85 million was invalidated, or that the unpaid sales balance of KRW 50 million was repaid through the collection order of the above bonds seizure. Thus, it is reasonable for the defendant to exclude the above KRW 1.9 billion in deductible expenses, including the above KRW 1.85 million and the balance of KRW 50 million,000,000,000,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance with this conclusion is justifiable. Accordingly, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Poe-dae (Presiding Judge) Lee Jae-hoon