The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 127(4) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that “in cases where a national is subject to the reduction of income tax or corporate tax in the same taxable year under Articles 6, 7, 12-2, 30-4, 94, 10-14, 10-14 and 121-15, only one of the cases where the national is subject to the reduction of income tax or corporate tax under Articles 6, 32(4), 33-2, 63, 63-2(2), 64, 66 through 68, 85-6, 121-8, 121-9(2) and 121-17(2) and where the national is subject to the reduction of income tax or corporate tax under Articles 5, 11, 24, 25-2 through 25-4, 94, 10-1-1.

B. citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below: ① (a) the Plaintiff transferred the Incheon factory located in the overconcentration control region in the Seoul Metropolitan area from 2005 to 2006 to Ulsan-Eup and Chungcheong-gun (hereinafter “Seoul factory relocation to a local area”); (b) the Plaintiff at the time of filing corporate tax for each business year of 2005 to 2010, applied the tax reduction or exemption under Article 63-2(2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act to a relocated factory; and (c) at the same time, the Plaintiff filed a tax return on corporate tax by applying the tax credit for investment as prescribed in Articles 11, 24, 25-3, 26, 104-14, 15, etc. of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act to the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff received an excessive tax credit by simultaneously applying the tax reduction or exemption and the tax credit for investment in violation of Article 127(4) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which provides for the double support.