Seoul Rik Co., Ltd. (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Kim Yong-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

(1) The head of the tax office’s office and the head of the tax office’s office (Law Firm D.C., Attorneys Seo-ho et al.

May 31, 2017

Incheon District Court Decision 2015Guhap51969 Decided September 23, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 1,188,270,230 (including additional tax of KRW 483,014,853) for the business year of 2008 against the Plaintiff on March 13, 2014 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following Paragraph (2). Thus, the meaning of a abbreviation used in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter the same shall apply to the judgment of the court of first instance)

2. Parts to be removed or added;

○○ 2-3’s overall title of the 2-3’s primary reason is to read “(the trade name was changed in order from “Co., Ltd. Daxx to “Co., Ltd.”, “Co., Ltd.’s pocket book”, “Co., Ltd.’s name” and “Seoul Rik”).”

Pursuant to the 4th table above, " June 23, 2008" in the first sentence shall be " June 24, 2008".

○○ KRW 15,791,228,800 for “15,15,111,450,000 for “15,111,678,800 for “15,111,678,800” for “15,111,678,800 for “15.79,1,000 for “15.79,000 for “15.79,228,800” for “15,791, 228,800 for “7,” for “7,791,” for “15.

“In addition to gross income within the limit of KRW 15,11,678,800” in front of the “gross Profit” in paragraph 16 of the 8th page.

○ The following shall be added to the 11th page below:

“D) Liquidation income of a merged corporation and merger evaluation marginal profit of a merged corporation are both imposed on the unrealized value of assets generated during the period of merger holding by a merged corporation. In case where liquidation income of a merged corporation is generated, if liquidation income of a merged corporation is entirely taxable as long as liquidation income is not deducted from the merger evaluation marginal profit under Articles 14(1)1(c) and 12(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, there is a problem of double taxation with respect to the portion imposed as liquidation income of a merged corporation. However, the liquidation income (Article 80(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act) calculated by deducting the total amount of equity capital of a merged corporation as of the date of registration of merger from the total amount of the merger cost received by stockholders, etc. of a merged corporation from a merged corporation is not included in the calculation of merger marginal profit, so if the merger marginal profit is included in the calculation of the merger marginal profit, the above problem of double taxation can

○ The 12th page 11 to 12 of the 12th page "value of business rights ...." shall be "value of business rights".

○ Following the 16th page, the 4th class “No. 5” shall be applied to “No. 3”.

○ 17 Under the third below, “one of the intangible fixed assets shall be added to the following provisions:

The "Financial Supervisory Commission" of the 12th 19th 12 shall be regarded as the "Financial Services Commission".

○ The following shall be added after the last 5th day of the 20th page:

Even if the elements as seen earlier are also included in the elements to be considered in calculating the profit value, insofar as the profit value and the operating right under the tax law are not consistent with the concept, so long as the operating value of the non-listed corporation is reflected in the profit value and the cost of the merger was determined, and as a result, even if the operating right in this case was calculated, the total amount cannot be deemed to fall under the value of the operating right under the tax law as a matter of course. In addition, if a corporation is an unlisted corporation in the course of calculating the merger ratio and succeeds to the operating right under the tax law on the ground that there was an evaluation of the profit value, it shall be deemed that the scope of the operating right under the tax law recognized as an asset regardless of the specific existence and value of the extinguished corporation, as well as the merger between listed corporations without the evaluation of the profit value in

○ The following shall be added to Chapter 24 below.

“A) Even if it is unlawful for the Plaintiff to dispose of KRW 15,791,228,80,00 appropriated as the instant goodwill during the business year from 2008 to 2011, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff evaluated and succeeded to the instant goodwill as an asset under the tax law recognized as an asset under the Corporate Tax Act due to such circumstance.”

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jong-tae (Presiding Judge)