Suwon District Court 2009Guhap1427 (No. 15, 2009)

early 208 Heavy2457 ( November 20, 2008)

Appropriateness of the assertion that foreign personnel expenses have been paid

Although the withdrawal of cash in a deposit account in the name of the employee is recognized, it is difficult to believe that the employee was actually paid personnel expenses only on the evidence submitted.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. The plaintiff's purport and purport of appeal

A. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 4,346,270 for corporate tax of 200 for the Plaintiff on June 1, 2007, KRW 10,920 for the first term portion of 200, KRW 10,920 for the first term portion of 200, KRW 4,746,310 for the first term portion of 203, KRW 13,892,380 for the second term portion of 205, respectively, and the imposition of KRW 1,40 for the first term portion of 204 for the Plaintiff on November 6, 200 for the second term portion of 205 (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”). The imposition disposition of KRW 1,406,195,590 for the first term portion of 204 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

B. Purport of appeal

The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. Among each of the dispositions in this case, the remaining dispositions excluding the imposition of corporate tax of KRW 4,346,270 against the plaintiff on June 1, 2007 shall be revoked.

2. The defendant's purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning for the statement concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is the same as that for the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance, except for the portion to be determined additionally in the following B. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and

B. Additional determination

(1) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

(A) With respect to the corporate tax and special rural development tax in 2004, the standard for the occurrence of profit and loss under the corporate accounting standards (No. 4 A33) provides that "if a seller is obligated to perform an additional act even after legal ownership has been transferred or owned and the profit and loss has been actually transferred to a buyer, the seller is aware of the profit and loss at the time of completion of the pertinent act." The two parcels of 14 arms, which are the subject of the instant sales contract, were later expropriated due to collateral mortgage, and the Plaintiff received the compensation on June 15, 2006, and the ownership transfer registration for the remaining 12 parcels was completed on July 13, 2006, so it is reasonable to recognize the profit and loss as being completed by performing the important act on June 30, 2006, and therefore it is reasonable to recognize the profit and loss as being accrued on June 206. 206.

As long as Article 68(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act clearly provides for the business year to which profits and losses accrue due to the transfer of fixed assets, it is unnecessary to adopt the standards for the occurrence of profits and losses under the corporate accounting standards and determine the attribution of profits and losses. Since corporate tax and special agricultural and fishing villages tax in 2004 are related to the remaining 12 parcels, the grounds asserted by the Plaintiff alone do not require to determine the business year to which profits and losses accrue for the remaining 12 parcels in relation to the timing of transfer of ownership or the timing of payment of compensation for expropriation.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(B) In addition, with respect to the corporate tax and special tax for rural development in 2004, the Plaintiff has the characteristics of technical and difficult determination of the period of attribution of profit and loss. In particular, in the event that there are no difference in the total profit or total amount of tax over several business years as in the instant case and there are only differences in the method of distribution, it cannot be caused by the Plaintiff’s fault of failing to perform its duties on the ground that the Plaintiff made a wrong determination of the business year to which part of corporate tax in 2003 belongs, and the Defendant, which is the tax authority, has made a erroneous determination of the business year to which part of corporate tax in 2003 belongs and received the decision of correction of the business year to which it reverts in 204, even if the Plaintiff made a erroneous determination of the business year to which it

As long as Article 68(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act clearly provides for the business year to which profits and losses accrue due to the transfer, etc. of fixed assets, the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as justifiable grounds under Article 68(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. The same applies to cases where the Defendant, who is the tax authority, erroneously determines the business year to which

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(2) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(A) The judgment of the court of first instance held that the application of Article 76 (9) 1 and 2 of the Corporate Tax Act prior to the amendment in 2001 in the case of land or buildings violates the excessive prohibition principle, but on the ground that the corporate tax of 2000 against the plaintiff issued a tax invoice different from the fact, the above judgment was erroneous.

(B) However, since the corporate tax of 200 against the plaintiff is clearly imposed pursuant to Article 76 (9) 1 and 2 because it falls under the case where a tax invoice is not issued under Article 121 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act before the amendment in 2001, or where a list of total tax invoices by purchase and sale is not submitted under Article 121 (3). Thus, the defendant's above assertion on this issue is without merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance is just and there is no ground for appeal by both the plaintiff and the defendant, and all appeals by both the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.