early 209Gu1992 ( December 09, 2009)

Compensation for losses incurred before the law firm's place of business is included in gross income.

Although an affiliated attorney-at-law paid compensation for losses due to the relocation of the place of business, an affiliated attorney-at-law should be included in the gross income when calculating the amount of corporate income because he/she has no right to receive compensation

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Law Firm ○○ Law Office

Head of Dong Daegu Tax Office

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 167,346,80 for corporate tax of December 5, 2008 and corporate tax of KRW 2,393,930 for corporate tax of KRW 2006 for corporate tax of KRW 167,346,80 for the year 205, and the imposition of KRW 71,271,070 for earned income tax of KRW 2005 for the year 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that has been engaged in notarial affairs and legal affairs since its opening on November 25, 1986.

B. On May 27, 2007, the Defendant: (a) conducted a survey of 3,850,000,000 won which was the owner of the above ○○○○○○○○○○-dong 35-11 site and above-ground building (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”); (b) 00,000 won which was the owner of the instant real estate from ○○○○○○○○○○-dong 35-11; (c) 20,000 won which was the owner of the instant real estate; (d) 3,850,000 won which was the owner of the instant real estate; (e) 0,000 won which was the owner of the instant real estate; (e) 20,000 won which was the owner of the instant real estate; and (e) 3,000,000 won which was the owner of the instant real estate; (e) 6,300,000 won or more of the instant real estate; and (e 3, 20003.

C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the disposition of the instant corporate tax, filed an appeal on March 2, 2009 with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on May 13 of the same year, and filed an appeal on April 29, 2009 against the disposition of the instant earned income tax, but was dismissed on December 9 of the same year.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 10, 11, 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the dispositions of this case are proper; and

A. The plaintiff's principal

The LB paid KRW 100,000,000 to each of the members of the Plaintiff, not the Plaintiff, as compensation for losses, and the fact that the LB received KRW 500,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s representative attorney at the time is not the representative of the legal entity, but the above KRW 500,000,00,00, as it is received from the representative of the legal entity’s agent, is not the nature of inclusion in the Plaintiff’s gross income. In addition, although the non-party company bears the expenses for the installation and interior of signboards, the Plaintiff did not directly receive the above expenses from the non-party company, and did not know the specific amount, and even if it was reflected in the accounting of the expenses for the installation and interior of a sign, it is merely the repair expenses not for a fixed businessman for business or capital expenditure, and thus there is no change in the income increase or decrease of the legal entity as well as the amount equivalent to the expenses (expenses) of the legal entity in the year concerned.

Therefore, it is unlawful to include the above compensation for losses, the installation of signboards, and the interior expenses as the plaintiff's gross income, and to impose the corporate tax of this case, and as long as it is illegal to include the above compensation for losses in the plaintiff's gross income, the disposition of wage and salary income tax of this case

(b) Related statutes;

It shall be as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On August 29, 2005, the non-party company purchased the instant real estate in the purchase price of KRW 3,850,000,000 from AB (at the time, the Plaintiff’s affiliated attorneys-at-law and/or the 262.1 shares) and AF (No. 53/262.1 shares) who were the owners of the instant real estate that the Plaintiff had been operating for the said business on August 29, 2005.

(2) When entering into the above sales contract, the non-party company arranged the entire 2nd floor of ○○○-dong 33-3, 00 ○○-dong 33-3 and the 48nd east of the building so that the plaintiff can rent and move to the 48th east of the building. At the expense of the non-party company, the non-party company agreed to provide various facilities, such as structural change,

(3) Of the sales price of the instant real estate in KRW 3,850,000,00, the Nonparty Company prepared for 500,000,000 as a check and paid KRW 500,000 as compensation for business losses to the Plaintiff, and the Nonparty Company again paid KRW 100,00,000 to the Plaintiff’s representative, and the Plaintiff again paid KRW 100,00,000 to the Plaintiff’s respective accounts at the time of payment.

(4) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff moved ○○○○-dong 33-3 to ○○-dong 33-3, and the Nonparty Company bears 41,360,000 won in total, including KRW 5,060,000, and 36,300,000, at the signboard installation cost of the Plaintiff’s relocated place of business.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 9, 10, 13, 14, and 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) In case of compensation for losses

In light of the fact that the attorney-at-law who was a representative attorney of the plaintiff at the time was registered in the real estate in this case as an individual qualification and did not conduct business, and that the non-party company arranged for the relocation of the plaintiff's place of business and took part in the test cost, it appears that the non-party company paid 500,000,000 won in the purchase price for the purpose of the transfer of the plaintiff, and that the non-party company received 500,000,000 won in the purchase price for the purpose of the transfer of the plaintiff, and the doorA again distributed 1,00,000 won to the members of the plaintiff, including the plaintiff's member, after he received 50,000,000 won in the purchase price for the purpose of the transfer of the plaintiff, it is reasonable to view that the non-party company paid 10,000,000 won to the plaintiff's members, and there is no other evidence that the plaintiff's members were paid to each member.

(2)With regard to the installation and test cost of a signboard;

Under Article 23(1) of the Corporate Tax Act, the depreciation costs of fixed assets shall be included in the deductible expenses for the pertinent business year only where the corporation appropriates them as deductible expenses for each business year. If the installation of signboards and the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior construction is the increase of the fixed assets for the Plaintiff’s business, which is offered by the non-party company without compensation, it shall be included in the Plaintiff’s gross income in accordance with Article 15(1) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 11 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. Unless the Plaintiff appropriated them as deductible expenses for the pertinent business year, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

In addition, the plaintiff did not directly receive the above costs from the non-party company, and did not know the specific amount. However, as long as the non-party company paid the above costs and increased the plaintiff's fixed assets for business, it should be included in the plaintiff's gross income, and it does not interfere with the inclusion of signboard installation and the test of the costs in the plaintiff's gross income. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(3) Therefore, the disposition of the corporate tax of this case, which was imposed by including 500,000,000 won for compensation for losses and 41,360,000 won for signboards and interior expenses in the Plaintiff’s gross income, is lawful, and the disposition of the earned income tax of this case is also lawful, based on the premise that 500,000,000 won for losses belongs to the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

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