Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Young-gu, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

May 14, 2008

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2007Guhap12156 decided Oct. 16, 2007

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 82,781,800 against the plaintiff on January 2, 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's reasoning for this case is that the plaintiff is a small and medium enterprise operating a construction business. The plaintiff's housing construction business operated by the plaintiff constitutes "construction business". The 4th 11th m "the plaintiff's business type" is changed to "the Housing Construction and Sales Business Act operated by the plaintiff," "the 8th h h h h h h "in this case," and "the h h h h h h h h h "in difficult". The following is "the h h h h h h h h, h h h h h h h, h h h h h h h h h, h h h h h h, 1,382, 740, and 388 of the first h h h h h h h h h h h, h h h h h, 20, h h h h h h h h h.

Article 2(3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8827 of Dec. 31, 2007) newly provides for the proviso that "the business type subject to the application of special taxation under this Act due to a change in the Korea Standard Industrial Classification shall be subject to special taxation according to the Korean Standard Industrial Classification before the change in the taxable year and the following taxable years." This purport is to relax the tax burden for a certain period where a small or medium enterprise that was subject to special tax exemption under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is excluded from the special tax exemption under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. The plaintiff of this case was originally subject to the special tax exemption under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, but was excluded from the subject of the special tax exemption by classifying the business type under the Korea Standard Industrial Classification. Thus, the plaintiff of this case asserts that the special tax exemption of the plaintiff should be deferred for a certain period

However, the proviso of Article 2(3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act newly provided as above is to be enforced from January 1, 2008 pursuant to Article 1 of the Addenda, and there is no ground to view that the proviso of Article 2(3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act can be applied retroactively to the recognition of the grace period for the enterprises excluded from the previous special tax reduction and exemption. Therefore, the plaintiff

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Yong-ho (Presiding Judge)