Suwon District Court 201Guhap1752 ( December 20, 2011)

early 2010 Heavy055 ( October 25, 2011)

It cannot be concluded that the facility use fee received under the facility use contract is received at a lower price than the market price.

Since the transaction of using the instant facilities is similar to the transaction of using the instant golf course between the Plaintiff and its members, it is reasonable to calculate the price that the Plaintiff received from its members based on the said transaction.

2012Nu3172 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Corporate Tax, etc.

XX Co., Ltd

Head of the High Tax Office

District Court Decision 2011Guhap1752 Decided December 20, 2011

July 6, 2012

September 7, 2012

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. In the disposition of the first instance court, " September 8, 2009" in paragraph (1) of this Article shall be corrected to " September 1, 2009".

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's disposition of imposition of 00 won of corporate tax for the business year 2004, 000 won of corporate tax for the business year 2006, 000 won of corporate tax for the business year 2006, 000 won of corporate tax for the business year 2007, 000 won of value-added tax for the second period of 2004, 000 won of value-added tax for the second period of 2005, 000 won of value-added tax for the second period of 2006, 000 won for the second period of 2006, and 00 won for the second period of 207 for the second period of 207.

2. Purport of appeal

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

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this court's decision are as follows: " September 8, 2009, the first half of the judgment of the court of first instance" is dismissed as " September 1, 2009," and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment, which is identical to the following paragraph 2. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's assertion

In light of the Plaintiff’s view, XX is also a non-member, and if the Plaintiff did not receive facility usage fees corresponding to the profit accrued to non-member from XX, this would eventually undertake up the facility usage fees. In addition, the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case is lawful on the premise that the Plaintiff received facility usage fees from XX at a lower price than the market price.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances cited earlier, it seems reasonable to calculate the fee for the use of the instant facilities based on the price received by the Plaintiff from its members, since the instant transaction between the Plaintiff and Xx was similar to the transaction between the Plaintiff and its members, and thus, it seems reasonable to calculate the fee for the use of the facilities based on the price received by the Plaintiff from its members. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

1) The purpose of the instant facility use agreement between the Plaintiff and the non-member is to lease the Plaintiff’s golf course and continue to use it. On the other hand, the purpose of the instant facility use agreement between the Plaintiff and the non-member is to use the Plaintiff’s golf course once on the condition that the Plaintiff is accompanied by the Plaintiff’s member or members, and therefore, the status of the Plaintiff’s non-member is similar only to the status of the Plaintiff’s corporate member, and is not similar to the status of the non-member.

2) The amount of the Plaintiff’s security deposit per head of the Plaintiff’s member when acquiring the Plaintiff’s shares is KRW 000, and the security deposit per head of the XX is KRW 000, and the amount of the security deposit per head of the Plaintiff’s member and per head of the golf facility employee in XX is similar. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s security deposit and the security deposit in XX are similar to the economic effect of the Plaintiff’s member.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the " September 8, 2009" in the decision of the court of first instance is obvious that it is a clerical error in the " September 1, 2009" in the decision of the court of first instance.