Seocho 2014west 3223, 2015.07.16

Pursuant to the Korean Standard Industrial Classification, it does not constitute an online information provision business subject to reduction or exemption;

Pursuant to the Korean Standard Industrial Classification, the type of business is not the online information provision business but the financial support service business when classifying the types of business.

Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2015Guhap75497 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

OOOO Co.

O Head of tax office

National Rotations

May 24, 2016

June 16, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

Each disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 69,093,880 (including additional tax), corporate tax of KRW 75,058,720 (including additional tax), corporate tax of the year 2010, corporate tax of KRW 60,434,960 (including additional tax), corporate tax of the year 2011, and corporate tax of KRW 20,645,410 (including additional tax) belonging to the year 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 29, 200, the Plaintiff is a business entity designated by the Financial Supervisory Service as a bond price assessment agency on July 1, 200, and provides online information to banks, securities companies, insurance companies, annual fund management companies, indirect investment companies, etc. every day after evaluating the market price of financial investment assets, such as various domestic and foreign bonds, derivatives, alternative investment assets, and unlisted stocks.

B. In filing a return on corporate tax for the period between 2009 and 2012 to the Defendant, the Plaintiff: (a) deemed the type of business of the main business (hereinafter “instant category of business”) to fall under the information service business among the types of tax reduction and exemption under Article 7(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11133, Dec. 31, 2011; (b) as to the portion of corporate tax for the year 2009 to 2011, the same applies to the portion of corporate tax for the year 2012, respectively; and (c) collectively referred to as “former Restriction of Special Taxation Act”; and (d) deemed to fall under the information service business (o) among the categories of business subject to reduction and exemption under Article 7(1)(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12853, Dec. 23

C. After conducting an audit against the defendant, the director of regional tax office issued a corrective order to the effect that the plaintiff's main industrial activities is assessing the market price of claims, etc. using high level of financial expertise related to financial products and constitutes a financial service business, and that the market price is merely an incidental activity, and it does not constitute an information service business, and thus does not constitute an information service business, and thus cannot be subject to special tax reduction or exemption for small and medium enterprises.

D. Accordingly, on March 12, 2014, the Defendant issued a notice of correction and correction of the corporate tax of 69,093,880 won, corporate tax of 2009, corporate tax of 75,058,720, corporate tax of 2010, corporate tax of 60,434,960, and corporate tax of 20,645,410 for the year 2012 (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

E. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions, filed an application for adjudication with the Director of the Tax Tribunal on June 15, 2014, but was dismissed by the Director of the Tax Tribunal on July 16, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 7-1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The key type of business of the plaintiff is "online information provision business" among the three categories of information service business defined in the Korea Standard Industrial Classification because it has higher added value due to the provision of evaluation information than the added value due to the evaluation of bonds, etc., rather than the evaluation business of the plaintiff's work process bonds, etc., and the provision of information to the customers is more important and essential than the evaluation business.

Even if the key issue type of business does not belong to the online information provision business, it constitutes at least one of the three categories of information service business, namely, data processing business, portal and other Internet information brokerage business, or other information service business. Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case to the effect that the key type of business in this case does not fall under the information service business, which is the business subject to special tax reduction or exemption under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, is illegal.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Relevant standards

Article 2 (3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "The classification of the types of business used in this Act shall be in accordance with the Korean Standard Industrial Classification publicly notified by the Commissioner of the Statistics Korea pursuant to Article 22 of the Statistics Act, except as otherwise provided for in this Act, and the general theory of the Korean Standard Industrial Classification pursuant to Article 207-53 of the Statistics Korea's notification of the Statistics Korea shall be determined according to the type of the main industrial activities (goods and services sold or provided) performed by the production unit, and such main industrial activities shall be determined according to the size of the added value (value) for the products (goods or services), but if it is difficult to measure the added value (value), it shall be determined by the calculated value, and if it is not appropriate to determine in accordance with the above principles, it shall be determined according to the number of employees of the relevant activities, working hours, wages

(ii) the facts of recognition

A) On July 1, 200, pursuant to Article 263 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, the Plaintiff was designated as a bond price assessment agency that operates the business of 'evaluation of the price of assets such as bonds which are part of collective investment property' and 'providing it to the collective investment scheme'. At that time, the Plaintiff was granted the conditions of designation such as 'to notify the customer of the bond price assessment information assessed per day', 'to give notice to the Korea Securities Dealers Association before the commencement of the business every day, 'to make it available for public notice', 'to calculate the price of bonds whose price calculation is difficult, ' to consult with the Evaluation Committee on the adjustment in dispute.'

B) The 2013 letter of introduction prepared by the Plaintiff himself/herself: The 2013 letter includes 13 consecutive years market share of financial investment instruments, such as bonds and derivatives, and 13 consecutive years in the evaluation field of financial investment instruments, i.e., bond evaluation headquarters, derivatives evaluation headquarters, alternative investment asset evaluation headquarters, financial engineering research institute (class-class position) and financial engineering team. The 2013 letter of introduction contains 108 general manpower: 108 general manpower and 90 certified public accountants (CPA).

C) The Plaintiff’s profit structure as of 2011 consists of 81.26% of the bond assessment commission, consulting 5.06%, 19.52% of the non-marketable shares assessment, 2.54% of the information project, and 11.61% of other 1.61%.

D) Of the Plaintiff’s total executives and employees, the ratio of the number of employees assessed on claims is 50.69% in the business year 201, 2012, 49.25% in the business year 2012, 54.28% in the business year 2013, 58.51% in the business year 2014, 54.01% in the business year 2015, and 54.01% in the business year 2015, and the rate of wages paid to the number of employees assessed on claims is 4.62% in the business year 2011, 43.73% in the business year 2012, 45.10% in the business year 2013, 4.93% in the business year 2014, and 4.76% in the business year 2015 (on the other hand, materials

E) From 2001 to 2013, the Plaintiff invested approximately KRW 2.5 billion in order to meet the requirements for physical facilities under relevant statutes. The total assets on the statement of financial position in 2011 reaches KRW 10.7 billion.

F) The Plaintiff and AAA Co., Ltd. (CCC Co., Ltd.) and BB Co., Ltd. (DD Co., Ltd.) (hereinafter “DD Co., Ltd”) are not subject to the application for reduction of and exemption from small and medium enterprise special tax at the time of

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 8-1, 2, Eul evidence 9-1 and Eul evidence 9-2, the purport of the whole arguments and arguments

3) Determination

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff appears to be engaged in the provision of information, other than claims, pursuant to the relevant laws and regulations. However, the provision of information is relatively simple, while price assessment information, such as claims, is calculated and created by high-level professional manpower's appraisal work rather than simply scattered information. The Plaintiff's profit creation is in essence derived from the appraisal work of claims, etc. In light of the Plaintiff's actual profit structure, number of employees, labor cost ratio, etc., more larger and more significant than the portion of the appraisal work of claims such as claims, etc., to which the Plaintiff belongs among the Korea Standard Industrial Classification, the "online information provision business", "data processing business", "e-mail and other Internet information intermediary service business" or "other information service business" belongs to the publication, image, and information service business under the Korea Standard Industrial Classification, and it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff's main business belongs to the information provision business, which mainly belongs to the Plaintiff's financial business or the Plaintiff's information provision business based on the information provision of information, and thus, it is not clearly included in the Plaintiff's financial business or other information service business.

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case to the same effect is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.