The delay in the collection of construction cost between persons with a special relationship shall be deemed as a loan and the amount recognized as a loan, and disposed of as a representative bonus.

The delay of delay of the collection of construction price to be paid by a person with a special relationship without any justifiable reason shall bring about the same effect as the provisional payment has been made after the full recovery of the construction price within the time limit for the performance of the contractual obligations. Therefore, it shall be deemed that abnormal transactions without economic rationality which unreasonably reduce tax burdens.

Article 28 (Non-Inclusion of Paid Interest in Loss)

2014Guhap57677 and revocation of the global income;

○○

O Head of tax office

October 31, 2014

November 28, 2014

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The imposition of global income tax for the year 2008 and the global income tax for the year 2009 shall be revoked by the former Defendant on January 2, 2014.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고(지분 보유율 0.25%)와 원고의 아버지 맹○○(79.8%) 등은 토목 건축공사업 및 주택 건설업 등을 영위하는 ▲▲▲건설 주식회사(이하 '이 사건 회사'라 한다)의 주주들이다.

B. The head of △△△ Regional Tax Office, from August 28, 2012 to December 21, 2012, conducted a tax investigation with respect to the instant company. The head of △△△△△ Regional Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the taxation data that the instant company completed the construction of newly constructed apartment units conducted by the Plaintiff, a related party, from 2006 to 2008, and subsequently extended funds from the Plaintiff due to the delay in collecting the construction cost (hereinafter referred to as “market construction cost”). The Defendant: (a) recognized the construction cost of the instant company on the ground that the instant company delayed the recovery of the issues from the Plaintiff, a related party; (b) notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the KRW 00 for corporate tax of 2010 to the instant company on April 15, 2013; and (c) rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for the adjudication on global income for 2000 O and 2000 for each of the above amount recognized as the bonus for the Plaintiff’s disposal of the global income.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 8 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

【Ground statute】

Article 28 (Non-Inclusion of Paid Interest in Calculation of Losses) of the former Corporate Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 11128, Dec. 31, 201); hereinafter the same shall apply)

(1) The interest on any of the following borrowings shall not be included in deductible expenses for the purpose of calculating the amount of income of a domestic corporation for each business year:

4. Of interest on loans paid during each business year by a domestic corporation which acquires or holds any of the following assets, the amount calculated, as prescribed by Presidential Decree (limited to interest on loans equivalent to the value of the relevant assets among such loans);

(1) Where the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office deems that the tax burden of a domestic corporation has been unjustly reduced through the conduct of a domestic corporation or transactions with a person in a special relationship prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereinafter referred to as a "specially related person"), he/she may calculate the amount of income for each business year of the relevant corporation regardless of the conduct or calculation of the amount of income of the relevant corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Calculation by wrongful calculation").

When filing a report on the corporate tax base on the income for each business year pursuant to Article 60 or determining or revising the corporate tax base pursuant to Article 66 or 69, the amount included in the calculation of earnings shall be disposed of as prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as bonus, dividends, other outflows (e.g., outflows), internal reserve, etc. to the person to whom the income belongs.

(1) "Those prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 28 (1) 4 (b) of the Act means the amount of loans (including the amount of loans that cannot be deemed the principal profit-making business in cases of financial companies, etc. falling under any subparagraph of Article 61 (2) 2) that are unrelated to the business of the relevant corporation, regardless of the names thereof.

(1) Where it is deemed that the tax burden has been unjustly reduced under Article 52 (1) of the Act means cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs: 6. Where money and other assets or services have been lent or provided without compensation or at an interest rate, tariff, or rent which is lower than the market price; 2. Whether the disposition of this case is lawful or not:

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff and the instant company agreed to pay the construction price at the time of completion of apartment sale, such as ordinary cases, while entering into a contract for the key construction works, and the payment of the construction price at issue was delayed due to delay in apartment sale. Thus, the key issue is not the provisional payment in charge of affairs under Article 28(1)4 (b) of the Corporate Tax Act. Therefore, the instant disposition that was made by including the person who recognized the construction price at issue in the gross income of the instant company and disposing of it as a bonus to the Plaintiff is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) The purport of Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act, which provides for the denial of unfair calculation of profits, is to consider that transactions with a corporation and a related party under the provision of each subparagraph of Article 8(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act are deemed to have neglected economic rationality by abusing the forms of transactions under the provision of each subparagraph of Article 8(1). It is to ensure fairness in taxation and to prevent tax evasion by imposing deemed unfair income objectively reasonable in terms of tax law. Determination of whether the transactions are reasonable or not should be made based on whether the transactions are inappropriate in light of sound social norms or commercial practices (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Nu18697, May 28, 1997; 9Du10131, Nov. 27, 2001; 206Du1860, Nov. 1, 2006). The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff were not entitled to receive the total amount of construction payment under the provision of Article 88(2) of the Corporate Tax Act for the period of 10-20 months.

As can be seen from the above facts, the issue at issue after the company of this case completed the sale of apartment unilaterally favorable to the plaintiff three months prior to the completion of construction work on the specially related plaintiff.

Although the content of the contract was modified as payment of the construction cost, it did not enter into any agreement on compensation or compensation for delay in payment of the construction cost. It is difficult to view the said transaction as an economic rationality under the social norms.

Therefore, considering that the above transaction is an abnormal transaction without economic rationality and the tax burden has been unjustly reduced, it is reasonable to include the recognition of the construction cost and the amount equivalent thereto in the gross income of the company in 2010, and to dispose of it as a bonus to the plaintiff in the same purport. The plaintiff's assertion in this part cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is all dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.