Seoul Administrative Court-2013-Gu Partnership-8400 ( November 05, 2013)

Cho Jae-2010-Seoul Government-2499 ( December 21, 2012)

Whether the agreed amount paid to compensate for the difference in the process of changing the construction shares to the construction company is a loss in connection with the business.

The amount of money paid by the plaintiff under an agreement to compensate for the difference to A Construction while adjusting that the ratio of the share was lowered in the process that the plaintiff guaranteed A Construction's share of construction to transfer A Construction's construction rights to B. The amount of money paid by A Construction constitutes losses related to the business of the corporation.

Article 19 (Scope of Losses)

2013Nu51307 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

AAA, Inc.

BB Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap8400 Decided November 5, 2013

May 28, 2014

July 2, 2014

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport and purport of appeal, scope of trial of this court

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing KRW 4,701,04,952 (including additional tax for underreporting KRW 880,118,251, additional tax for unfaithful payment), KRW 25,060,721 of the corporate tax for the business year 2006, which the Plaintiff rendered on January 4, 2010, and KRW 87,429,234 of the additional tax for underreporting the aggregate of the tax invoices among the corporate tax for the business year 2006, and the imposition of KRW 25,060,721 of the additional tax for underreporting the aggregate of the tax invoices among the value-added tax for the first

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

3. Scope of the judgment of this court.

On January 4, 2010, the Plaintiff sought to revoke all imposition of KRW 4,701,04,952 (including under-reported additional taxes, KRW 880,118,251, KRW 887,159, and KRW 197) of corporate tax for the business year 2006, KRW 25,060,721 of corporate tax for the year 2006, and KRW 87,429,234 of the total tax invoice aggregate return among the value-added tax for the first time, and the imposition of KRW 87,429,234 of the total tax invoice aggregate return among the value-added tax for the first time in 2006, the first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal as to the above portion of corporate tax for the business year 2006, which was made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, including the above portion of the Plaintiff’s appeal for revocation.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why this court should explain are as follows: (a) the reasons why the defendant is required to consider is identical to the reasons why the court of the first instance rendered a decision, except for any addition under the following: (b) Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff agreed to guarantee the construction share of 20% toCC Construction, it is not acknowledged by objective data, and there is no expected profit from the implementation project that the Plaintiff did not have the expected profit to the Plaintiff, so there is no expected profit to distribute it toCC Construction, etc., the instant agreement is paid at will even though the Plaintiff did not have the duty to pay it. Thus, it does not constitute losses or expenses incurred in relation to the Plaintiff’s business.

B. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, i.e., evidence adopted in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by this judgment, comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the arguments, i.e., evidence A through 12, evidence A through 16, evidence A through 19, and the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to evidence A through 22 through 25, the Plaintiff was provided with funding, including joint and several CC Construction, and 20% of the construction shares of the instant project. However, in the process of acquiring a construction right, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff agreed to compensate for the difference to CC Construction, instead of 15% of the acquisition of the construction right, and that the Plaintiff was paid KRW 31 billion of the project cost from D Construction while transferring the actual status as DD Construction, it can be deemed that the Plaintiff actually received expected future profits from D Construction. ③ In light of the fact that the Plaintiff was unable to conclude a sales contract with CC Construction as expenses incurred in relation to the instant construction project, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid part of the construction rights directly related to CC Construction.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim of this case that the defendant sought revocation of the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 4,701,004,952 (including additional tax for underreporting, KRW 880,118,251, and additional tax for unfaithful payment, KRW 887,159,197) for the business year 2006 to the plaintiff on January 4, 2010 shall be quoted. It is so decided by the court of first instance.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the above part.