Whether the act of paying rent for a person with a special relationship is a wrongful calculation, and whether the child’s mother is donated;

The excessive payment of rent for a person with a special relationship shall be subject to wrongful calculation, but it shall not be deemed that his/her mother has donated his/her stocks to his/her mother in light of all circumstances.

Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act

Incheon District Court 2015Guhap50911 ( October 29, 2015)

00 Other 1

00 Parts arising between the Educational Stock Company and the Director of the Tax Office

00 Education Co., Ltd.: Defendant 00 chief of tax office to the Education Co., Ltd. on May 7, 2014

corporate tax (including additional tax) for one 2010 business year and corporate tax for 2011

0 won (including additional taxes) and each 00 won (including additional taxes) of corporate tax for the business year 2012

The administrative disposition shall be revoked.

00: It is marked as the Disposition.

00 Other 1

00. The director of the tax office shall bear each of the taxes.

Cheong-gu Office

2015.24

October 29, 2015

1. On May 8, 2014, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over Defendant 00 shall revoke the imposition of KRW 0 (including additional taxes) on the Plaintiff 00.

2. The plaintiff 00 education corporation's claim is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff 00 Education Stock Company and the Defendant 00 Tax Office

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff 00 Education Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff 00”) leased and used the entire 000ccssl 601-603 and 7th floor (hereinafter “instant real estate”) located in Incheon 00-Gu 00, 464-1 from the former husband Kim00 of the representative director of the Plaintiff 00 education, and paid the Plaintiff KRW 628,585,568 in total as rent from 2010 to 2012.

B. As a result of the consolidated investigation of corporate tax on Plaintiff 00, the appropriate rent for the real estate of this case leased by Plaintiff 00 was 270,410,507 and the reasonable rent exceeded the reasonable rent, the Defendant deemed that the education for Plaintiff 00 was divided the profits of Plaintiff 1 to Kim 00, and imposed corporate tax on Plaintiff 00 for the business year of 2010 (including additional tax), corporate tax0 (including additional tax), corporate tax0 for the business year of 2011, corporate tax0 for the business year of 2012 (including additional tax), and corporate tax0 for the business year of 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “each disposition imposing corporate tax of this case”). Moreover, as a result of the investigation of changes in the shares of Plaintiff 00 education, the Defendant deemed that the education for Plaintiff 00 was divided the profits of Plaintiff 0 to Plaintiff 10,000 (hereinafter referred to as “share 408, 200”).

D. The Plaintiffs filed a request for an inquiry with the Tax Tribunal on the grounds that they were dissatisfied with the imposition of each of the instant corporate tax and gift tax, but received a decision of dismissal on November 27, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 2, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1-1, 3 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The plaintiff 00's assertion of education

The Defendant calculated a rent per 604 square meter per 604 square meter, located in the same building as the instant real estate, and compared it with the instant real estate rent. Since dance institutes are inappropriate to be deemed as comparable to the instant real estate, the imposition of each of the instant corporate tax, which calculated an appropriate rent based on this, is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

Article 52 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act defines the unfair reduction of tax burden on corporation's income through transactions with a specially related person as "unfair calculation" and Article 52 (2) of the same Act provides that when applying wrongful calculation, it shall be based on the sound social norms and commercial practice as well as the price determined to be applied to normal transactions between persons who are not a specially related person, i.e., the market price. In addition, Article 88 (1) 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the type of wrongful calculation shall be defined as the type of wrongful calculation in cases where cash and other assets or services are borrowed or received at an interest rate, rate, or rent higher than the market price, and Article 89 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "market price is similar to that of the relevant transaction, the relevant corporation shall be continuously traded with many and unspecified persons other than a specially related person". In light of the provisions of the relevant Act and related legal principles as seen earlier, it is recognized that the above facts are acknowledged that education was recorded in the health class, evidence, and the whole pleading, and the following facts are legitimate.

① The lessor, the lessor of the instant real estate, is a major shareholder of Plaintiff 00 education, and is a specially related person prescribed in the Corporate Tax Act.

② The education of 00 principal school entered into a lease agreement with Kim 00 on the instant real estate, and paid rent to Kim 00 from 2010 to 2012 as follows:

③ On the other hand, a dance institute, No. 604, 600 of the instant real estate, entered into a lease agreement with 00, and paid rent to 00 from 2010 to 2012 as follows.

④ A dance institute is located in the same building as Plaintiff 00 education, and its surrounding environment such as distance to subway stations, school children and distribution of migratory population is the same, and is located on the same floor, and it is also called “private teaching institute” for the purpose of lease of the maintenance, dance, and Plaintiff 00 education.

⑤ After Kim00 installed heating and cooling facilities, etc. of the instant real estate at its own expense, Plaintiff 00 was leased to Plaintiff 00. However, the Plaintiff 00 education also paid rent for the heating and cooling facilities, etc. separate from rent.

A. The plaintiff Lee 00's assertion

As Plaintiff 00 transferred the instant shares acquired under the name of Kim 00 by means of the division of property following the divorce, the imposition of the gift tax of this case by deeming this as a gift is unlawful.

(3) According to the records of evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, the Plaintiff’s husband’s 00 donated 2,400,000 to his her husband on August 31, 2009 and February 14, 201. The Kim 00 acquired 4,800 shares of the Plaintiff’s 00 education with the above 4,800 shares to the Plaintiff on December 11, 2012. However, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s 00 shares were transferred to the above 00 shares without compensation, based on the premise that the Plaintiff’s 100 shares were transferred to the above 00 shares, and that the Plaintiff’s 100 shares were transferred to the Plaintiff’s 1,00 shares to the above 1,00 shares, and that it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s 1,000 shares were transferred to the Plaintiff’s 4,800 shares without compensation.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff 00's claim is justified, and the plaintiff 00's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.