Inasmuch as it is reasonable for the Plaintiff to bear the instant costs, it does not constitute wrongful calculation.

According to the official text, it means that the Plaintiff would compensate the Plaintiff for the loss caused to the Plaintiff by shortening the toll collection period, and it cannot be interpreted that the Plaintiff would bear the burden of free-of-chargeing expenses. Therefore, it is reasonable that the Plaintiff would bear the instant expenses. The Plaintiff’s payment of the instant expenses cannot be deemed as wrongful calculation

Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act: Denial of Wrongful Calculation

2016Guhap53157 Revocation of Corporate Tax Imposition, etc.

AAAAA

○ Head of tax office

August 22, 2017

September 5, 2017

1. On March 11, 2015, the Defendant revoked the part exceeding ○○○○○○○ out of the corporate tax (including additional tax) for the business year 2011 against the Plaintiff’s KRW ○○○○○○○.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a local public enterprise established by investing BB in 100% in accordance with Article 146 of the Local Autonomy Act and Article 49 of the Local Public Enterprises Act with the aim of contributing to the improvement of the welfare of Do residents and the development of local communities through local development projects, etc.

B. On February 28, 2001, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the management and operation of the ○ tunnel waterway with BB to collect tolls from December 1, 2000 to December 31, 201. On September 9, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with BB on December 1, 2000 to July 31, 201, changing the collection period from the toll rate of the ○ tunnel to the toll rate of the ○ tunnel.

C. BB, around October 6, 2010, promoted the implementation of ○○ Tunnels tolls free of charge, reduced the existing toll collection period from July 31, 2014 to December 31, 2010. From January 1, 2011, BB free of charge the toll of ○○ Tunnels.

D. Meanwhile, after the date of termination of the right to manage the toll road of ○○ Tunnels ( December 31, 2010) at the time of the Plaintiff’s corporate tax declaration in 2011, the Plaintiff appropriated the cost of ○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “instant cost”) incurred by the Plaintiff as deductible expenses.

E. However, the Commissioner of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (in the settlement of accounts for accounting corporations, the amount of outstanding investment) that was not recovered from BB despite the Plaintiff’s tax investigation conducted with BB on July 31, 2014, the period for collecting the tolls of the instant expenses under the Convention concluded with BB was reduced to December 31, 2014, but the collection period was reduced to December 31, 2010 and could not be recovered due to a toll free payment. Therefore, even though the amount of unpaid investment expenses was collected from BB on the part of BB (hereinafter referred to as “related issues”) and BBB paid the toll free payment cost to the Defendant, the Plaintiff determined the amount of the instant expenses paid (hereinafter referred to as “related issues”) as an unfair transaction between related parties, and notified the Defendant thereof.

F. On March 11, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to increase the amount of corporate tax ○○○○○○○○ in the business year 2011 to the Plaintiff.

G. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 28, 2015. The Director of the Tax Tribunal accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on September 9, 2016. However, the part relating to the issue was ② dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim (the part pertaining to the issue of this case falls under ②).

H. On September 28, 2016, the Defendant reduced the Plaintiff’s corporate tax for the business year 2011 to ○○○○○○ (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 6, 8, 16, 20, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3

Statement (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings,

2. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Defendant, on October 6, 2010, deemed that BB should bear the cost of free tolling of the ○○ tunnel, based on the public notice “promotion of free tolling of the ○○ tunnel.” However, the content of the public notice means that BB compensates the Plaintiff for the loss incurred to the Plaintiff by reducing the toll collection period of the ○○ tunnel. In addition, the instant cost is related to the ○○ tunnel, which the Plaintiff should bear, such as the cost of removing the toll collection office and the cost of refunding the existing toll ticket issued. The Plaintiff collected the investment cost exceeding the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ through the audit by the accounting firm. The settlement of the management and operation of the ○○○○○○○○○○ was completed by

2) Even if the instant expense should be borne by BB, the instant expense may be deemed to have been incurred by the Plaintiff for BB, and thus, it should be recognized as having been deemed as having been a statutory donation and as having been fully included in the deductible expenses. Therefore, the Defendant’s inclusion of the instant expense in gross income in the calculation

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances that are acknowledged by the evidence Nos. 15, 17 through 20, the evidence Nos. 15, 17 through 3, and the testimony and pleading of the witnessCC as a whole, the Plaintiff’s burden of this case is justifiable, and the Plaintiff’s payment of this case’s expense cannot be deemed as a wrongful calculation. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

1) According to BB’s public notice on October 6, 2010, BB’s public notice, “the promotion of the free tolling of the tunnel: the cost of 'the full-time cost-bearing: the full-time cost-bearing; the amount of temporary refund: the estimated amount of ○00 billion (Do subsidy) and the post-payment after appropriating the collected tolls for free payment.” However, the above public notice refers to ○○○.

As for the "bridge analysis", the reserve fund of KRW 00 billion shall be created by the end of December 2010 in the operation.

It is anticipated that the reserve would be short of KRW 00 billion when the reserve is temporarily repaid. The term "final settlement is conducted pursuant to the tax law through an accounting firm inspection after the completion of the collection of tolls." When comprehensively interpreting the above language, the term "free cost: the full cost-bearing" means the tolls of the ○○ tunnel.

The term "BB" means that if the plaintiff suffers loss by shortening the collection period, it shall be compensated by the BB, and it shall not be interpreted that the BB bears an unconditional cost of freeization.

2) On November 9, 2010, the Plaintiff changed the provision regarding the period of free use, the timing for collecting tolls, and the details of the settlement of expenses under the existing agreement with BB, to the effect that “Plaintiff shall collect tolls only until December 31, 2010, and BB shall compensate the Plaintiff for the shortage (the result of certified public accountant’s settlement of accounts) in total amount of investment and operating expenses until February 28, 201, which is the end of the period of free use, until February 28, 2011.”

3) On April 8, 2011, the Plaintiff and BB conducted an audit of the settlement of accounts on the revenue and expenditure of the accounting firm instead of an accounting firm. As a result, the Plaintiff recovered the investment cost in excess of the ○○○○○○○○ on February 28, 2011, when the period of free use expires. Since then, the Plaintiff returned the said money to BB, and the settlement of accounts between the Plaintiff and BB regarding the management and operation of the ○○ tunnel was completed.

4) In particular, as of February 28, 201, as of February 28, 201, the ○○ Accounting Corporation audited the cost of the instant disposition including the liability on the premise that the Plaintiff bears the burden of paying the amount for which payment time has not yet arrived among the toll road management expenses, and the expenses for returning the previous issued tolls. Therefore, each of the instant dispositions is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

(c)