Cheongju District Court-2016-Gu Partnership-10157 ( October 13, 2016)

The amount of subrogated payment paid to the customer of this case constitutes entertainment expenses.

(as in the judgment of the court of first instance) the amount of subrogated payment made by the business party to the business party of the case constitutes a contact rather than a consideration for business rights.

Article 25 of the former Corporate Tax Act

2016Nu10849 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax, etc.

X.x

O Head of tax office

Cheongju District Court Decision 2016Guhap10157 Decided October 13, 2016

March 15, 2017

April 19, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

[Claim]

The Defendant imposed corporate tax of 11,10,170 won on the Plaintiff on March 2, 2015; corporate tax of 30,257,750 won for the business year 201; corporate tax of 27,579,830 won for the business year 2012; corporate tax of 26,66,240 won for the business year 2013; imposition of interest income of 6,270,000 won for the business year 2010; imposition of interest income of 13,343,00 won for the interest income of 2012; imposition of 31,086,00 won for the interest income of 2013; imposition of 22,483,720 won for the business year 2013; imposition of 3,719,68 won for the business year 201, 2013; imposition of 13,1963,71,297 won for the year 209.

【Purpose of Appeal】

The part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke the below among the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 11,100,170 on March 2, 2015, exceeding KRW 36,909 of corporate tax for the business year 2010, exceeding KRW 305,60 of the imposition disposition of KRW 30,257,750 of corporate tax for the business year 201, exceeding KRW 605,60 of the imposition disposition of KRW 27,579,830 of corporate tax for the business year 2012, exceeding KRW 7,225,383 of the imposition disposition of KRW 26,66,240 of corporate tax for the business year 2013, exceeding KRW 3,967,257 of the imposition disposition of KRW 26,66,240 of corporate tax for the business year 2013, exceeding KRW 19,34,361 of the notice of change in income amount for the business year 2013.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

The plaintiff within the business year 2010, March 2, 2015, as stated in the above purport of the claim in the first instance court.

The court of first instance rejected the Plaintiff’s request for revocation of the imposition of respective interest income tax, and dismissed the remainder of the claims. The court of first instance rejected the Plaintiff’s request for revocation of the imposition of respective interest income tax in the year of 2013, the imposition of respective interest income tax for the year 2010 or the year 2013.

As to this, the Plaintiff is subject to the imposition of corporate tax for the business year from 2010 to 2013

On the premise that the amount of subrogation for a Aaa Co., Ltd. is not the entertainment expenses for business rights, the Defendant excluded the excess amount from deductible expenses, and dismissed the claim for cancellation of the excess amount stated in the purport of appeal related to the inclusion of depreciation amount in deductible expenses in excess of 77 million won on the premise that the legitimate price for business rights under a contract with BbB Partnership is 7,00,000 won, and the Defendant dismissed the claim for cancellation of the excess amount stated in the purport of appeal related to the inclusion in deductible expenses for the remaining amount of income in 2013, among the notice of change in income amount reverted to the above 2013, the Defendant appealed the claim for

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the above dismissed part of the part against the plaintiff in the first instance judgment.

2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on the instant case is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance and the scope of the above judgment.

As such, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is the same as the entry in the corresponding part.

this part of the reasoning is cited as it is.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition.