Whether it constitutes a small or medium venture enterprise subject to tax reduction or exemption under Article 6 (2) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

It does not have only the appearance of the "business start-up" such as the establishment of a corporation, but it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the details of the establishment of the relevant small and medium business, the detailed transaction status of the newly established small

Article 6 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

The revocation of the disposition of revocation of imposition of corporate tax, etc. by the District Court 2016 Guhap90

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

January 10, 2017

February 7, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 27, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) was established at the seat of the head office of the Sinju-Eup Y-si Pari-si, Paju-si for the purpose of manufacturing control devices and machinery; and (b) reported total corporate tax of KRW 228,654,210 as the tax amount reduced or exempted by applying Article 6(2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same) at the time of filing corporate tax from 2012 to 2014.

B. On January 18, 2016, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition imposing corporate tax of 2012, corporate tax of 37,396,040, corporate tax of 2013, corporate tax of 2013, corporate tax of 46,757,320, and corporate tax of 74,269,410, respectively, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s establishment does not fall under “business start-up” under Article 6(2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 30, 2016, but the appeal was dismissed on July 11, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the plaintiff and CCC's individual entrepreneurs are entirely separate enterprises, the plaintiff's establishment constitutes "business start-up" as provided by Article 6 (2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

It conforms to the principle of fairness to strictly interpret the provisions regarding the requirements for tax reduction and exemption as clearly preferential provisions. Thus, whether it constitutes a small and medium start-up venture enterprise subject to tax reduction and exemption under Article 6(2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act should be determined on the basis of whether it accords with the principle of fairness to provide benefits for tax reduction and exemption by comprehensively taking into account the details of the establishment of the relevant small and medium enterprise, specific transaction status of the previous business and newly established small and medium enterprises, transaction size and actual conditions, etc.

The following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff established for the purpose of manufacturing control equipment and machinery, and opened on November 20, 2008. CCC, the spouse of the representative director of the Plaintiff, operated the "A" of the private company operating the industrial contact tower system (control equipment) from September 21, 2005 to December 31, 2008; ② the Plaintiff’s name corresponds to the trade name of the former CCC’s "A" and considerable part of the Plaintiff’s transaction partner; ③ the Plaintiff’s history of the Plaintiff’s website was established in 2005; and ③ the Plaintiff’s business was not converted into the Plaintiff’s name of the former CCC’s business in the form of the former CCC or the former CCC’s new business establishment in addition to the Plaintiff’s prior business establishment in the form of “1” or the former CCC’s new business establishment in 208.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as there is no ground.