Incheon District Court 2014Guu32725 (2015.03)

The agreement of this case constitutes losses and does not constitute expenses paid without connection to the business.

(1) The agreement of this case paid by the plaintiff constitutes losses and thus a disposition imposing tax on the expenses not related to the business is unreasonable.

Article 19 (Scope of Deductible Expenses)

Seoul High Court 2015Nu53086

An act of infringing author's property right at this site as an operator of the site

Liability for aiding and abetting, compensation for damage therefrom, and cooperation between the plaintiff and the author's property right holder

The agreement of this case in a related criminal case was the primary purpose of forming the community.

Even if such circumstances alone take account of the sentencing factors favorable to the payment of the amount.

amount to be paid by the management of the plaintiff shall be included in the expenses or the amount to be paid by the management of the

shall not be deemed the same as a fine, which is a non-deductible loss.

○ 15th 15th 15th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 600) add the following contents:

On the other hand, the issue of including certain items in deductible expenses in the lawsuit of revocation of the revocation of the imposition of corporate tax.

(1) If the expenses do not constitute losses prescribed in Article 19(1) and (2), the expenses shall not constitute losses;

section 19-2 through 28 of the Act, any of the non-deductible items.

tax authority that has the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements in a lawsuit seeking revocation of taxation

"......."

○ In addition to the attached Form "Related Acts and subordinate statutes", the entry of "additional related Acts and subordinate statutes" shall be added.

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's assertion

Even if the agreement amount of this case is deemed as losses, it constitutes entertainment expenses in its nature.

of this case’s agreed amount which exceeds the limit of entertainment expenses recognized as losses under the Corporate Tax Act

must be excluded from deductible expenses.

B. Determination

Article 25 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that entertainment expenses paid by a domestic corporation for each business year shall be each subparagraph.

The amount in excess of the aggregate amount shall be calculated in the calculation of the income amount for the concerned business year.

Paragraph (5) of the same Article provides that entertainment expenses shall not be included in deductible expenses, and Paragraph (5) of the same Article provides that "entertainment expenses" shall be included

other expenses of a similar nature, regardless of any name, which are related to the business of a corporation

(2) In light of the language and text and purport of such provision, the term “amount paid” refers to the amount paid.

In this regard, among the expenses paid by the corporation for its business, those related to the other party

The purpose of this expenditure is to further promote friendship between business-related persons through entertainment activities, etc.

in order to facilitate the smooth progress of transaction relations, such expenses shall be deemed entertainment expenses.

However, the cost spent by the corporation in direct connection with the profit is readily concluded as entertainment expenses.

Nor may take (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du14329, Sept. 27, 2012).

In light of the above legal principles as to the instant case, the instant agreement is entertainment, entertainment, or entertainment;

It is not disbursed in the way of entertainment, return, etc., but disbursed for the purpose of promoting friendship;

It is difficult to regard it as entertainment expenses because it is not an entertainment expense.

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

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

○○○○○○○

○ Head of tax office

Incheon District Court Decision 2014Guhap32725 Decided 03, 2015

November 25, 2015

January 20, 2016

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 corporate tax of 20,700,860 won, 2008 private company tax for the business year of 2007 against the plaintiff on December 3, 2012

Corporate tax for the business year 25,38,730 won, corporate tax for the business year 2009 3,498,056,670 won, and business year 2010

Each disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 18,631,50, KRW 18,734,130 for the business year 201 shall be revoked.

section 3.

2. Purport of appeal

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

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, and the reasoning for this Court’s decision is the same as the reasoning for the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the judgment on the Defendant’s new argument in the first instance judgment under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(F) The Defendant asserts that the instant agreement falls under the amount paid by the Plaintiff for the purpose of mitigation of the Plaintiff’s management’s sentence in the relevant criminal case, and that there is no reason to treat the agreement differently from the fine not included in deductible expenses under the Corporate Tax Act. However, the Plaintiff’s agreement in this case does not constitute this case.