Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Partnership-7935 ( December 07, 2017)

The early trial 2016-west-311 (2016.03)

Since it cannot be deemed that management consulting stations have been provided or have been paid as compensation for labor, it shall be excluded from deductible expenses (state succession).

The management consulting fee cannot be deemed to be related to the business, and the expenditure in the name of the salary shall not be considered as compensation for the work, but it does not correspond to the overseas exit equipment, and the gift profits related to the merger and the unfair behavior division are separate earnings items.

I are as shown in the attached Form.

Article 19 (Scope of Losses)

Seoul High Court-2018-Nu32929 Corporate Tax, etc. Revocation of Disposition

investment 00

000 director of the tax office

Judgment of the second instance

National Rotations

2, 2018.22

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of KRW 93,785,120 of the corporate tax for the business year 2007 against the plaintiff on December 1, 2014 (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), KRW 103,905,040 of the corporate tax for the business year 2008, KRW 20,133,800 of the corporate tax for the business year 2009, KRW 64,165,580 of the corporate tax for the business year 2011, KRW 25,830,850 of the corporate tax for the business year 2012, KRW 272,880 of the corporate tax for the business year 207, KRW 1,527, KRW 150 of the value-added tax for the business year 208, KRW 208, KRW 3630 of the corporate tax for the business year 205.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this Court concerning this case are as follows: (a) the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is amended as provided in paragraph (2) below; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff as stated in Paragraph (3) below; and (c) the meaning of the terms used in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is

2. Parts to be corrected;

Part 4 of the 2nd Table, "A pending trial in the first instance of this case" shall be applied to "A pending trial in the first instance of this case".

Part 18 of the fifth page shall be "...............................".

The 7th page of the 8th page shall be written by cutting "the photographic works of this case" into "the individual photographic works of this case".

Section 119,367,00 for "119,367,00 for "119,365 for "119,367,07" for "5 for each share," "82,765,00 for "82,765,00 for each share," "120,504,00 for "6 for each share, 14" for "120,504,718 for "120,504,718 for each share," and "32,636,000 for each share, 7 for "322,636,821 for "32,821 for each share," respectively.

Pursuant to the 6th sentence, approximately KRW 24 million shall be " around 2,400,00,000,000" and the "24 million,00,000" of the list shall be "2,40,000,000" respectively.

The defendant shall add "the plaintiff", "0 North Korea", "0", and shall add "value" of the third chapter below the second Schedule to "value" as described in the above 6).

Part 8 of the 8th page "Nos. 3 through 21" shall be written by cutting "No. 1 to 21".

Part 30 of the 6th page "(2007, 2008, no data is available for the business year of 2008)" is added.

After the third e-mail of the first e-mail of the 31st e-mail includes not only the e-mail sent from February 201 to April 2014, 2012, but also the content of the 1st e-mail of the 1st e-mail of the 1st e-mail of the 2007 and the 1st e-mail of the 200th e-mail of the 1st e-mail of the 1st e-mail of the 1st e-mail of the 1st e-mail of the 1st e-mail of the 1st e-mail.

The 33th 7th 7th Dol" shall be made by cutting the following:

In addition, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 23, Eul evidence No. 18 and 20 shall contain the purport of the whole pleadings.

(2) On April 12, 2013, and April 22, 2013, and October 15, 2013

The expenses paid in Paris include expenses, prepared and submitted in accordance with the Plaintiff’s ordinary procedures.

From April 14, 2013, to April 19, 2013, the Seoul-Seoul-Sero among the business travel letters.

-Seoul's business trip letter and letter of business trip from October 8, 2013 to October 15, 2013;

It is recognized that there is a business trip letter for the Seoul-Francur-Seoul's business trip, and according to this, the disbursement made at the close time is considered to have been processed separately by taking into account the specific use, etc.

Part 17-19 of the 34th page "......................."

[1] As the Plaintiff could purchase 00 North Korea at a low price, the Plaintiff purchased it in a lump sum to increase the price for futures to customers, etc. In addition, since purchased 00 North Korea from 201, he had an interest in the sale of photograph and art works in the future, and he was engaged in the sale of photograph and art works in the future, and thus the relation of duties is recognized. However, there is no material about how the Plaintiff used it for the original purpose of purchase after purchasing 00 North Korea, and it is unclear whether the purpose of the gift for customers itself is for many and unspecified persons. According to the evidence No. 22, the addition of "sale of photograph and art works for the Plaintiff's purpose of business" is acknowledged as of April 2, 2015 when four years elapsed since the purchase of 00 North Korea.

The 7th page of the 35th page shall be written by cutting "the sand design" into "the sand eggs design".

The following shall be added to each 19 note subsequent to the last 16th day of the 35th page:

“19) The instant high-priced purchase amount is included in the gross income as a result of the denial of wrongful calculation and is included in the deductible expenses as well as the amount of corporate tax for 2012 business year due to the reduction of tangible assets as seen earlier. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to this part is related to the assessment of the value of the deceased’s photographic works, including the instant individual photographic works, including 00 North Korea and the instant individual photographic works, and is also related to the assessment of the net asset value of the highly heavy industry at the time of the merger by division and the instant culture and arts division

After the 17th anniversary of the 39th page, the following shall be added:

“(The plaintiff)” has been repeatedly submitted by the plaintiff in relation to the value of the individual photographic works of this case.

The author argues that it is unfair to reject the report by the professional appraiser Nos. 10, 11, and 12-1 through 4 of the evidence Nos. 12. However, in light of the overall purport of the arguments as a whole, 00 of the appraisal request by the U.S. to appraise the deceased's photographic work from the U.S., considering that the the subject of the deceased's photographic work and the subject of the deceased's photographic work can be formed and controlled by themselves, the author's photographic work is similar to the deceased, and compared to the subject of the photographic work of the deceased's photographic work controlled by the U.S. ("Market Access Act"), the author's photographic work requested by the appraiser and provided by the U.S. may accept the sale price of the deceased's photographic work, and the author's photographic work can not be viewed as an unlawful act under Article 28(2)9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 28(2)9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

The part of "the above inclusion in the calculation of earnings" in the 3-7th place of the 42th to "the above inclusion in the calculation of earnings" shall be considered as "the above inclusion in the calculation of earnings," and it shall not be "the inclusion in the calculation of earnings" in the 9th place (the corporation which is a shareholder who distributes profits through an unfair merger and the corporation which is a shareholder of a related party

In addition, ‘only one case' is added.

3. Additional determination

The plaintiff asserted that each disposition of this case was unlawful since it was based on the rule of law under the Constitution, and it was not found that the state's public authority was mobilized for the purpose of 000 shipping and the deceased's work, which is the owner of the government's responsibility for 000 accident, and according to the direction of the government's office to move before the deceased's work, and that there was no procedural legitimacy or basic human rights protection based on the rule of law under the Constitution. However, even if considering all evidence submitted by both parties in this case, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the above argument, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

4. 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.