Seoul High Court 2010Nu21930 ( October 20, 2011)

The difference between the exercise price and market price of stock options granted by a foreign parent company to its officers and employees shall not be deemed as losses of the domestic subsidiary.

As a result, it cannot be deemed that a domestic subsidiary has an agreement on compensating for expenses with respect to granting an overseas parent company's right to select purchase to executives and employees of a domestic subsidiary company, such agreement cannot be deemed generally accepted as ordinary expenses if there is no agreement

Article 19 of the Corporate Tax Act

2011Du22556 Revocation of revocation of request for rectification

1. AAA Korea Ltd. 2. AAAA Korea Ltd.

3. BBBBBBB 4. CCC et al., 5. DD Limited Liability Company

1. The director of the regional tax office; 2. The director of the regional tax office;

4. The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu21930 Decided July 20, 201

May 29, 2014

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Based on the evidence adopted, the court below asserted that the Plaintiffs paid the preservation expenses of this case to foreign mother corporations that granted their employees and employees with stock options to compensate for such expenses. The Defendants filed a request for correction with the reduction of corporate tax for the business year 2005 through 2008, but the Defendants did not recognize the requirements for granting stock options and exercising time, employment contract with employees and employees, and preservation agreement between the Plaintiffs and overseas mother corporations, etc. as stated in Article 10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 209 of the Corporate Tax Act). However, in light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the expenses of this case to compensate for losses of the Plaintiffs, or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as stated in Article 10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2130, Feb. 4, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 2019, Mar. 9, 2009).

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.