beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On January 1, 1998, the Plaintiff was a juristic person established with the location of its main office of "39 (Pudong-gu, Incheon-gu) prisoners of war" as its main office, and was engaged in the business of "Stainer's steel sales business", "Stains Product Manufacturing and Sale Business", "Stainer Manufacturing and Wholesale Business", "Stainer Manufacturing and Wholesale Business", and "a business incidental thereto" in the corporate register.
B. On March 4, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Korea Industrial Complex Corporation on the purchase price of the instant land at KRW 3,69,89,000 on the 563,057 square meters of the Seoak-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Busan National Industrial Complex (hereinafter “instant land”). On the same day, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from the Haak Stes semiconductor Co., Ltd. at KRW 3,669,89,000, and accordingly completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land on October 6, 2005.
C. On March 5, 2008, the Plaintiff obtained a construction permit for the instant land-based factory building, and commenced May 31, 2008. On March 13, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the construction of the factory listed in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “the instant dust factory”) on the ground of the instant land, and obtained the approval for the use thereof. On April 8, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the registration of initial ownership for the instant dust factory on the instant land.
On June 18, 2010, the Plaintiff leased the instant dust plant and its site (which appears to be a part of the instant land) to the Gyeongethyl Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Nemulethyl”) at KRW 400,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 40,000,000. The Plaintiff used the instant dust plant and its site around that time.
E. From August 17, 2015 to October 9, 2015, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office of China conducts a corporate tax integration investigation against the Plaintiff from August 17, 2015, and considers the entire real estate of this case as “non-business real estate”, and the interest paid and depreciation costs involved.