Review Corporation 2009-0037 (29. 29. 2009)

stock options have been granted from overseas parent companies and has been compensated for the exercise costs, the stock options have been included in the loss.

The plaintiff corporation has been granted stock options, etc. from overseas parent companies and exercised them. The plaintiff corporation has compensated for the expenses such as stock options, etc. in return for the work provided by its executives and employees for the plaintiffs, and the share of the expenses such as stock options, etc. is included in the

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The defendant's rejection disposition of each request for correction shall be revoked in the separate sheet of rejection disposition against the plaintiffs.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고 ◆◆◆◆코리아 주식회사, 원고 ◆◆◆◆코리아제조 주식회사, 원고 ●●●이는 각 외국법인인 ◆◆◆◆C.가 100% 출자하여 설립한 국내외 자회사이고, 원고 한국◇◇◇스 주식회사는 외국법인인 ◇◇◇ World Trade Inc와 ◇◇◇ Europe B.V.가 각 44.11%와 55.89%를 출자하여 설립한 국내 자회사이며, 원고 ☆☆☆피 유한회사는 외국법인인 ☆☆☆ International L. T. D.가 100% 출자하여 설립한 국내 자회사이다(이하, ◆◆◆◆c., ◇◇◇ World Trade Inc와 ◇◇◇ Europe B.V., ☆☆☆ International L.T.D.를 통틀어 '이 사건 해외 모회사들'이라 한다).

B. The plaintiffs granted their executives and employees stock options or other similar rights (hereinafter "stock options, etc.") based on the main consciousness of the foreign parent company listed in the foreign securities market of this case. The foreign parent company of this case purchased stocks on the foreign securities market, etc. The executives and employees of the plaintiffs prepared for the transfer of stocks at the time of exercising the stock option. After the plaintiffs' exercise the stock option, etc. over 2005 - - - 2008, the plaintiffs paid the expenses for the purchase, etc. of the stocks by the foreign parent company of this case (hereinafter "the stock options, etc. of this case") to each foreign parent company of this case as shown below (However, the plaintiff 1 Yong-gu International L.D., the foreign subsidiary company of this case, which bears the expenses for exercising the stock option, was paid to the foreign subsidiary company of this case as the expenses for exercising the stock option, and the corporate tax was not included in deductible expenses in the calculation of losses for the pertinent business year.

C. Since then, the Plaintiffs filed an application for correction with the Defendants for the inclusion of expenses for the instant stock option, etc. in the calculation of deductible expenses. However, the Defendants rejected each of the Plaintiffs’ request for correction, such as the detailed statement of rejection of request for correction, on the ground that the instant stock option, etc. costs do not constitute deductible expenses under the Corporate Tax Act (hereinafter “instant request for correction”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 14 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the instant dispositions rejecting a request by a police officer is legitimate

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiffs' principal

The costs of stock options, etc. of this case are illegal for the defendants' refusal of each of the correction applications of this case against the plaintiffs on the ground that they do not fall under deductible expenses under the Corporate Tax Act, as shown in subparagraph 19 of Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, because they are expenses incurred in paying a kind of spot bonus (stocks) to its executives and employees as compensation for work to induce them to be faithful to their work by making their executives and employees as an incentive for inducing them to acquire future stocks.

2) The defendants' master craftsman

The profits of the plaintiffs' officers and employees granted stock options to each of the foreign parent companies in this case from each of the foreign parent companies in this case are Class B earned income and expenses of overseas parent companies, such as stock purchase options, etc., and the plaintiffs' compensation for expenses such as stock options, etc. to the foreign parent companies in this case is subject to the rejection of unfair act and calculation under Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9267 of Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply). Article 19 subparagraph 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act applies to the case where a domestic subsidiary compensates for the expenses incurred to exercise stock options to the foreign parent company in this case after February 4, 2009. Thus, the expenses incurred prior to the business year 2008, such as stock options, etc.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

Article 19 of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the amount of losses incurred from transactions which reduce the net assets of the corporation, except as otherwise provided for in this Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes, shall be the amount of losses or expenses generated in connection with the business of the corporation, which are generally accepted or directly related to profit, and Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21302 of Feb. 4, 2009) provides that matters necessary for the scope, classification, etc. of the amount of losses shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21302 of Feb. 4, 2009) provides that the amount of losses shall be as stipulated in the following subparagraphs except as otherwise provided for in the Act and this Decree, and subparagraph 3 provides that the amount of expenses referred to in subparagraph 18 shall be the amount of losses or losses that

Article 38 (1) 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21301 of Feb. 4, 2009) provides that a corporation's executive officer or employee shall be entitled to take over new shares at a predetermined price or purchase his/her own shares to its executives or employees who will contribute to the management and technological innovation of the company. Article 38 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21301 of Feb. 4, 2009) provides that the amount of the stock option granted to its executives or employees under Article 87 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21301 of Feb. 1, 2009) shall be included in the amount of the income earned by exercising the stock option granted to its employees or employees under Article 87 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (which shall not be included in the amount of the stock option granted to its employees or employees for the provision of labor.

Therefore, the rejection disposition of each of the instant requests for correction under the premise that the Defendants did not constitute a loss under the Corporate Tax Act is illegal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted for the reasons of the reasons, and it is decided as per Disposition.