beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the part as set forth in paragraph (2) below is cited, thereby citing the judgment of the court of first instance in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of
2. Parts to be dried;
A. On the 8th of the first instance judgment, the 15th, 21th, 10th, 16th, 18th, 20, 11th, 3, 5th, and 8th, “the largest investor” shall be deemed “the largest investor”, “the determination on whether Article 2(5) of the amended Restriction of Special Taxation Act is applied” in the 10th, “the determination on the application of Article 2(5) of the amended Restriction of Special Taxation Act” in the 10th, “Article 1 of the Addenda” in the 11th, 9th, shall be deemed “Article 1 of the Addenda”, and the 11th, 10th to 11th, shall be deleted.
B. From 11th to 15th of the judgment of the court of first instance, the 12th to 14th of the 11th of the judgment shall be followed as follows.
Ultimately, even if B, a parent company, owned 33.76% or more of the Plaintiff’s shares as a subsidiary company, and owned 30% or more of the Plaintiff’s shares, if it continued to enforce the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises, the Plaintiff could not be deemed a small and medium enterprise under Article 2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act as a result of the amendment of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises on December 28, 2011, but the Plaintiff did not become a small and medium enterprise as seen earlier from the business year 2012, unlike the business year 201, in light of the contents of the relevant provisions, the above recognition, and the purport of the entire arguments, the Plaintiff constitutes a case where the Plaintiff becomes a small and medium enterprise due to the amendment of Article 3(1)2 of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises in the business year 2012, and the amendment of Article 2(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.