Seoul Administrative Court 2007Guhap35289 ( August 20, 2009)

Although it does not fall under the reduction or exemption of national taxes lawfully paid, it is unreasonable to calculate the additional dues from the day following the date of determination thereof.

The revocation of part of revaluation tax and corporate tax imposed by deeming the assets revaluation of a corporation as a voluntary evaluation marginal profit under the Corporate Tax Act shall not be deemed as "the reduction or exemption of the national tax lawfully paid" under Article 52 subparagraph 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, it is unreasonable to calculate additional dues from the day following the date

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

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 imposition of KRW 24,805,735,370, total sum of additional dues on refund as stated in the attached disposition on the Plaintiff on October 019, 2006, shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff's request shall be dismissed.

1. Acceptance of a judgment of the court of first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is that of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the new argument of the defendant at the trial of the court, and therefore, it is citing this as is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional judgment;

The defendant asserts that, in the case of the refund of this case, at least, the refund of this case constitutes a national tax refund due to the reduction or exemption of the national tax paid lawfully under Article 52 subparagraph 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it shall be calculated from the day following the

On the other hand, the defendant is not a revaluation under the Assets Revaluation Act for the reason that the revaluated of this case already conducted by the plaintiff could not be seen as a revaluation under the Assets Revaluation Act for the reason that it is not a revaluation under the Assets Revaluation Act, but a voluntary revaluation marginal profit under the Corporate Tax Act for the business year 1989, and imposed corporate tax for the business year 1989, and thereby canceled part of the revaluation tax of this case and the corporate tax for the business year 191 to 194. Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.