Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap43034 (2012.06.01)

Cho High Court Decision 2010Du0642 ( November 04, 2011)

Excess fuel costs are losses or expenses incurred in relation to the project that is required to acquire additional taxi commissions.

The excess fuel cost corresponding to the purchase cost of fuels corresponding to the import of taxi drivers among the fuels provided by the Plaintiff to the taxi driver constitutes a loss or expense generated or spent in connection with the business which is generally accepted as normal or directly related to profit, and the input tax amount corresponding to the amount of tax on the import of goods used or to be used for the business.

2012Nu1948 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Corporate Tax, etc.

XX Stock Company

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap43034 decided June 1, 2012

November 29, 2012

December 27, 2012

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 00 for the year 200, KRW 00 for the year 2005, KRW 00 for the year 2006, KRW 000 for the year 2007, KRW 000 for the year 2008, KRW 000 for the second period of year 2004, KRW 00 for the first period of year 2005, KRW 00 for the second period of year 2005, KRW 00 for the first period of year 2006, KRW 00 for the second period of year 2006, KRW 00 for the second period of year 2006, KRW 100 for the year 200 for the year 207, KRW 200 for the second period of year 200 for the year 208, and KRW 200 for the second period of value-added tax for 20 for the year 2008.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are reasonable, and therefore, it is accepted as the reasons for the judgment in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (However, the "before it was amended by Act No. 10423" shall be corrected into "before it was amended by Act No. 10423" (Article 10423).

2. The defendant asserts in the appellate trial that the amount of excess fuel equivalent to the purchase cost of the fuel corresponding to the import of taxi driver among the fuel provided by the plaintiff to the taxi driver is paid for the import of the taxi driver, so it constitutes expenses unrelated to the plaintiff's work.

However, the circumstances cited in the judgment of the court of first instance [Article 11 (2) of the judgment of the court of first instance] cited earlier are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff supplied a certain amount of fuel to a taxi driver; (b) whether the Plaintiff paid a certain amount of taxi commission to the taxi driver; and (c) the Plaintiff is basically determined by the wage agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the labor union; and (d) the Plaintiff can determine the amount of fuel supplied to a taxi driver in consideration of various matters, such as the purpose of preventing the severance from employment of taxi drivers or enhancing their awareness of work; and (e) the amount of taxi commission should not be increased or decreased due to the improvement thereof. Thus, it is difficult to view that there is a close price or response relationship between the fuel cost spent by the Plaintiff and the taxi commission paid by the taxi driver, which is obvious that the purchase cost of fuel supplied to the taxi driver is the expense disbursed by the Plaintiff in accordance with the wage agreement; and therefore, there is a need to recognize the Plaintiff’s inclusion of deductible expenses or input tax amount in relation to the Plaintiff’s business.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is dismissed for lack of grounds.