Suwon District Court-2016-Guhap64808 (Law No. 22, 2017.08)

The amount equivalent to the transfer price of the stock of this case shall not be deemed as the appraisal loss of the assets included in deductible expenses.

The amount equivalent to the transfer price of stocks of this case cannot be deemed as the appraisal loss of assets included in deductible expenses, and the provision of the retirement allowance for executive officers of this case seems to have been established as a temporary means for allocating the corporation's funds to a specific executive by lending the retirement benefit form. Thus, it does not constitute the provision on retirement allowances for executive officers under the Enforcement

Article 19-2 (Non-Inclusion of Bad Debts in Deductible Expenses)

Article 44 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

2017Nu71569 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

○○○○○○○

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Guhap64808 Decided August 22, 2017

2018.04.20

2018.05.25

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2010 against the plaintiff on May 15, 2014 and the imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2011 shall be revoked in all.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this decision are as follows. The fact-finding and decision of the first instance court are justifiable in light of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff to this court, and the fact-finding and decision of the first instance court are consistent with the reasons for the first instance court except where there are no errors as pointed out by the plaintiff. Therefore, they are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, from 12 pages 12 to 13, the following parts shall be improved.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that "the plaintiff and BB made a partial settlement agreement to the effect that the plaintiff and BB confirmed 25 billion won related to the share acquisition price of this case among the plaintiff's 87 billion won investment in 2010 as irrecoverable losses and renounced the right to claim the return of the investment amount.

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed in the facts acknowledged earlier, it is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion only by the descriptions of Gap’s evidence 16, 20, 21, and Eul evidence 26-4, and by some testimony of Han-Y’s witness at the trial, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

① The business operated by the H investment association under the instant investment association agreement between BB is not limited to the business operated by the H investment association, but also to the domestic investment business, such as construction and lease of real estate, development projects, resources development projects, energy-related projects and SOC development projects, domestic securities and derivatives investment projects, and other overseas investment projects, such as housing complex development projects, alternative energy-related technology development, manufacture and sale projects, new and renewable energy projects, construction and operation of power plants, etc.

② Of the Plaintiff’s investment amounting to KRW 87 billion, 25 billion invested in the instant golf course business is merely a part of the said amount, and there is no evidence to deem that the said amount was settled separately by specifying it in the instant golf course business.

③ Even if there was an agreement to waive the right to claim the return of contribution, it may be recognized as loss if there exists an objective justifiable reason in the waiver of such claim. However, as seen earlier, as long as the Y*** does not respond to the claim for purchase of the instant golf club shares, so long as the agreement to grant the preferential right to share of the instant golf club between the Y and the Y is automatically terminated, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that there exists a justifiable reason in the waiver of the above claim. Therefore, this cannot be included in the loss.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.