early 208west2600 ( October 13, 2010)

It can not be deemed that the possibility of the profit and loss of indemnity in the business year is mature and finalized.

Even though the profit or loss for indemnity or indemnity is appropriated as the profit or loss for indemnity under the corporate accounting standards, it is difficult to deem that such profit or loss for indemnity has become mature and definite in the business year concerned, so such profit or loss for indemnity can not be appropriated as earnings or losses under the Corporate Tax Act.

2010Guhap29475 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

AAA Insurance Corporation

Head of the tax office;

November 3, 2011

November 24, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of KRW 19,729,733, and 703 on April 15, 2008 against the Plaintiff on April 1, 2005 to the Plaintiff on March 31, 2006.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that runs an insurance business, such as surety insurance and credit insurance.

B. According to Articles 13-2 and 22-5 of the Rules on Accounting of Insurance and Accounting established on December 10, 1998 and Article 6-17 of the Regulation on the Supervision of Insurance Business, benefits for indemnity mean the amount recoverable from the exercise of other rights, such as the sale of secured assets or the right to indemnity, acquired in the course of resolving the insured events, among the insurance proceeds paid by the Plaintiff, as a counterpart account for indemnity. Of the insurance proceeds paid by the Plaintiff, the amount recoverable in the future and calculated the amount of the insurance proceeds as at the settlement date, as at the settlement date, shall be appropriated as the other assets on the balance sheet, the profit and loss statement, the operating income, or the loss, and the amount calculated as at April 1, 2005 through March 31, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "205 business year"), the amount of the credit balance of the previous year (the balance of April 1, 2001, 2091, 1284, 7818, and 305, and 305, and 185.5.

C. In filing a return of corporate tax for the business year 2005, the Defendant considered that the Plaintiff did not adjust the tax under the provisions of the Corporate Tax Act. On April 15, 2008, the Defendant added the amount of 55,400,846,503 to gross income, and the amount of 10.23,518,08,308 to gross income, and the amount of 10.23,518,08 to gross income, added the amount of 25,579,33,670 (including additional tax 5,849,59,976) to the Plaintiff.

D. On July 11, 2008, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above corrective disposition and requested the National Tax Tribunal for adjudication on July 11, 2008. On April 16, 2010, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to correct the amount of the tax by deeming that there is a justifiable reason that the Plaintiff could not have caused any reason to the Plaintiff’s failure to adjust the compensation profit and loss for the pertinent business year (or deductible expenses), but the Plaintiff did not impose an additional tax because it did not cause any reason to cause any reason to the Plaintiff’s failure to adjust the tax adjustment on the compensation profit and loss. Accordingly, the remaining request for adjudication was dismissed. Accordingly, the Defendant corrected the amount of the tax amount to be corrected by reducing the amount of additional tax 5849,99,976 on May 18, 2010 (as a result, the amount of the tax amount to be corrected of the corporate tax in this case became 19,729,7333,

E. Meanwhile, around December 2005, the National Tax Service requested interpretation to the Ministry of Finance and Economy in relation to the period of taxable income of indemnity interest at the time of tax audit with respect to DD insurance companies, and the Ministry of Finance and Economy authoritative interpretation that "the benefit of indemnity appropriated in accordance with the corporate accounting standards as to the insurance money paid by a corporation operating a car damage insurance business is included in the gross income for the pertinent business year (hereinafter referred to as the "established rules in this case")."

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) A claim for indemnity or a claim for indemnity, as stated in the rules of accounting of insurance business, refers to the amount that can be recovered out of the claim for indemnity that arises under the law, and the claim for indemnity is acquired through the payment of insurance proceeds. Therefore, the claim for indemnity to the extent that the claim for indemnity can be evaluated as recoverable out of the claim for indemnity, regardless of the cash recovery, is already created as a right at the time of the payment of insurance proceeds. Therefore, since a claim for indemnity is deemed to have been established and confirmed to the extent that its feasibility is considerably mature and definite, it is consistent with the principle of confirmation of rights and obligations. It is not against the principle of confirmation of rights and obligations under Article 40(1) of the Corporate Tax Act, while the former Corporate Tax Act and its Enforcement Decree do not provide for specific provisions regarding the business year of accrual of a claim for indemnity and recognizing it as profit in accordance with the corporate accounting standards, it is not against the principle of confirmation of rights and obligations under Article 40

(2) Even if the period of attribution of profits and losses under the Corporate Tax Act should be determined based on the principle of cash or collection, the Plaintiff trusted the established rules of this case and paid corporate taxes, and trust the established rules of this case. Nevertheless, there is no reason to be any reason attributable to the Defendant. Nevertheless, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition against the established rules of this case, thereby causing property disadvantage to the Plaintiff. The instant disposition was unlawful against the principle of trust and good faith under Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

(b) relevant statutes;

In the attached Form, it shall be marked.

C. Determination

(1) The time of the industry of earnings and losses;

(4) The principle of determining profits and losses under the Corporate Tax Act is that the rights and obligations of the taxpayer are not realized until the income is actually realized. Therefore, it cannot be said that the rights and obligations of the purchaser have accrued in the process of realizing the realizing the above income. It is difficult to view that the rights and obligations of the purchaser are calculated based on the legal principles regarding the calculation of profits and obligations of the purchaser based on the fixed amount of income for the pertinent business year, and that there is no possibility that the rights and obligations of the purchaser were calculated based on the fixed amount of income for the pertinent business year, and that there is no possibility that the rights and obligations of the purchaser would have been calculated based on the fixed amount of income for the pertinent business year. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the pertinent provision regarding the calculation of profits and obligations of the purchaser based on the fixed amount of income under the corporate tax law would be applied mutatis mutandis to the calculation of profits and obligations of the purchaser based on the fixed amount of income for the pertinent business year (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1157, supra).

(2) Whether the principle of good faith is violated

In general, to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the acts of tax law and tax authorities, (i) the tax authority must issue a public opinion list that is trusted to taxpayers, and (ii) the taxpayer has no reason to be responsible to the taxpayer when the tax authority has trusted that the public opinion list is justifiable, and (iii) the taxpayer must act in trust and what is in violation of the above opinion list, and (iv) the tax authority should make a disposition contrary to the above opinion list, thereby infringing on the taxpayer's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du7741, Oct. 29, 2009). In this case, the defendant, who is the tax authority, made a public opinion list through the established rules of this case, and reported corporate tax in accordance with the method stipulated in the established rules of this case without any reason, but even if the plaintiff, who is the taxpayer, calculated corporate tax and paid corporate tax in this case by a method different from the established rules of this case, is not obliged to pay corporate tax originally to the plaintiff, and thus, the part of this case cannot be viewed as a result of infringement of the plaintiff's interest.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.