Supreme Court Decision 2013Du2655 ( June 27, 2013)

Whether it constitutes an employee’s invention compensation

Each invention of this case is an invention related to civil engineering works and landscaping works that belong to the plaintiff's scope of duties while in office, so there is a lot of room to regard it as an employee's invention under the former Patent Act or the Invention Promotion Act, and it is wrong to deny the tax credit for research and human resources development expenses.

Article 10 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2013Nu21191 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

AAA Corporation

Head of Central Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap10134 Decided February 3, 2012

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu7457 Decided January 11, 2013

Supreme Court Decision 2013Du2655 Decided June 27, 2013

October 23, 2013

November 20, 2013

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

On January 11, 2010, the defendant revoked all the imposition of the corporate tax for the year 2006 against the plaintiff and the corporate tax for the year 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

We examine ex officio the Defendant’s revocation ex officio of the instant disposition on October 18, 2013, which is pending in this Court (No. 8’s evidence 1 to 4).

Since the disposition of this case became null and void, the lawsuit of this case seeking its revocation is unlawful as there is no benefit.

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the case shall be dismissed. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act.