Cho High Court Decision 201Do3503 (O6.25)

In the case of entrusted research and development, if the entrusted company does not hold a dedicated department, it is not eligible for tax credit.

In the case of entrusted research and development, it is reasonable to interpret that it falls under the expenses for tax credit even if the entrusted company does not hold the exclusive department, if the entrusted company holds the exclusive department, it is against the tax equity in the case of self-research and development, and it is reasonable to regard that it does not fall

2012Guhap29509 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

2012Guhap31892 (Joint) revocation of disposition of imposing corporate tax

2012Guhap32369(combined) revocation of disposition of imposing corporate tax

2012Guhap32536 (Joint) revocation of disposition of imposing corporate tax

2012Guhap38428 (Joint) revocation of disposition of imposing corporate tax

2012Guhap40834 (Joint) revocation of disposition of imposing corporate tax

1.AA Co. 2.B.

3.CCC 4.DD Co., Ltd.

5.E Bank 6.F

1.The Head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Tax Office; 2.Cynam-gu Tax Office;

May 3, 2013

July 5, 2013

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The imposition disposition by the director of the tax office on February 11, 201 against the plaintiff AA 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff A") shall be revoked on April 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008, and the imposition disposition by the director of the tax office on the plaintiff 20.0 or 200 or less of the corporate tax on March 1, 2009 through March 31, 201. The imposition disposition by the director of the tax office on the plaintiff 20 or less of 30.00 (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff B") shall be revoked on March 11, 201, and the imposition disposition by the director of the tax office on the plaintiff 20 or less of 200.0 or less of the corporate tax on the plaintiff 20 or less of 200.0 or less of the corporate tax on the plaintiff 201 or less of 20.0 or less of 209.31.0

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff AA (2012Guhap29509)

1) Plaintiff AA, a domestic corporation operating a securities business, filed a request for correction to refund the total amount of corporate tax from April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007, and from March 31, 2007 to March 31, 2008, based on the tax credit provisions for research and human resources development expenses under Article 10 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, with the head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office, and the head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office decided to refund the amount equivalent to the above corporate tax on February 20, 2009.

2) On December 1, 2007, Plaintiff AA entered into a contract with GGG Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “GGG”) that owns a department exclusively in charge of technology development to entrust “development of the next generation IT system” service, and according to the said contract, Plaintiff A paid OO costs to GG as research and development expenses.

3) The Plaintiff AA applied the tax credit for research and development expenses from April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009 pursuant to Article 10 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9272 of Dec. 26, 2008) to the OO of research and development expenses paid to the GG by the Defendant, upon receiving a request for correction as described in the above paragraph (1), and deducted the tax amount to be paid from the tax amount to be paid at the time of filing the corporate tax return for the business year from April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010.

4) The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office ordered the company entrusted with research and development services to reject the tax credit for the part of the re-entrusted research and development services in the case of a regular audit of the amount of the tax credit against the Defendant Yongpo Tax Office. Accordingly, on February 11, 2011, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office corrected and notified the corporate tax OOOOO on April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008, and the corporate tax OOOOOOOO for the business year from April 1, 2009 to March 31, 201.

5) On May 11, 201, Plaintiff AA appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 11, 201. On June 8, 201, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that “The cost re-entrusted to a business entity having a research institute or a department in charge of research and development expenses, out of the research and development expenses that is re-entrusted by a third party, should be recognized as subject to the tax credit for research and development expenses” by the head of the tax office of the defendant Young-gu, the amount excluded from the amount subject to the tax credit for research and development expenses, and the amount of research and development expenses provided by the re-entrusted business entity holding a research institute or department in charge of research and development expenses from the amount subject to the tax credit for the pertinent business year, and the remainder of the claim is dismissed.”

6) Accordingly, on June 19, 2012, the head of the defendant Youngpo Tax Office notified Plaintiff AA, and on March 31, 2007 through March 31, 2008, OOOOOOOO directors as corporate tax, and on March 1, 2009 through March 31, 2010, he/she notified OOO directors as corporate tax reduction and correction, and on March 31, 201, OOO directors (additional additional dues on refund) and OOO directors (hereinafter referred to as the above reduction and exemption, OO directors as well as OO directors as corporate tax for the business year (i.e., April 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008 through 31, 2010-O1 to 301.

B. Plaintiff BB (2012Guhap31892)

1) On April 1, 2007, Plaintiff BB, a domestic corporation operating an insurance business, entered into a contract with multiple entrusted companies, including HH, holding a department in exclusive charge from March 31, 2008 until the business year from March 31, 2008, to entrust the establishment of a new insurance system and a retirement pension independent system.

2) Plaintiff BB paid the total amount of OO(OO on April 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008: OOO, from April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009: OOO: from April 31, 2008 to March 31, 2009) to the trustee under the above contract, and applied the Restriction of Special Taxation Act [the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8827, Dec. 31, 2007) (amended by Act No. 8827, Dec. 31, 2007); and the total amount of tax paid from O to 300,000,000,000 to 30,000,000,000,000 won (amended by Act No. 8827, Dec. 26, 2008 to 30,000).

3) On March 11, 201, the head of the Defendant Southern District Tax Office notified Plaintiff BB of the expenses incurred in sub-entrustment to a third party without performing research and development expenses by the trustee (from April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008: OOOO and from April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009: OOOO and from March 31, 2009) by deeming that research and development expenses are not subject to tax credit. In addition, on March 11, 201, the Defendant Southern District Tax Office notified Plaintiff BB of the corporate tax amount and the corporate tax amount on April 1, 2008 to March 31, 208, respectively.

4) On June 2, 2011, Plaintiff BB dissatisfied with it and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 21, 201. On June 25, 2011, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that “The costs re-entrusted to a company having a research institute or a department exclusively in charge of research and development, out of the research and development costs that was re-entrusted by a trustee company to a third party, should be recognized as eligible for tax credit” by the head of the tax office of South Korea, "the costs re-entrusted to a company having a department exclusively in charge of research and development, from the amount excluded from the tax credit amount of research and development costs, Plaintiff BB verified the costs of research and development services conducted by a company having a research institute or a department exclusively in charge of development, which was re-entrusted by the

5) Accordingly, on August 2, 2012, the head of the defendant Nammun District Tax Office notified the plaintiff BB of the reduction and correction of the OOOO won from the corporate tax on April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008, from April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009, and the OOO won from the corporate tax on March 31, 2009, and the OOOO (additional additional dues on refund) and the OOO (additional additional dues on refund) (hereinafter referred to as the "OOO on March 11, 201, remaining after the reduction, to impose the OOO corporate tax on March 31, 2007 (=OOOOO and OO-2008, respectively) -O301.

C. Plaintiff DD (2012Guhap32369)

1) On May 30, 2008, Plaintiff CCC (DD Co., Ltd., a domestic corporation operating an insurance business, entered into a contract with the Co., Ltd., III (hereinafter referred to as “III”) holding a dedicated department, entrusting the establishment of a general insurance system, etc., and paid OCO in III as research and development costs.

2) On April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009, Plaintiff CCC did not apply the tax credit for research and development expenses under Article 10 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9272 of Dec. 26, 2008), and omitted the application for the tax credit for the said research and development expenses at the time of filing the corporate tax return for the business year from April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010.

3) On October 26, 2010, Plaintiff CCC filed a request for correction to the head of Defendant Sejong District Tax Office to refund the amount equivalent to the above corporate tax by adding the amount of corporate tax reduction and exemption to the deductible tax amount for the business year from April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010, by applying the tax credit for research and development expenses.

4) On December 29, 2010, the director of the tax office, on the ground that the Plaintiff CCC, and the OOOOO members of the above research and development costs constitute the costs re-entrusted to a third party and are not subject to the tax credit, and that only the OOO members of the corporate tax are refunded by adding the deduction tax amount to the deduction tax amount, and the rest of OOO members (=OOO members -OOO members) were denied the request for correction.

5) On March 25, 201, Plaintiff CCC appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 5, 201 through an objection on March 25, 201. On June 28, 2012, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to reject the refund of the corporate tax on December 29, 2010 by the head of Defendant CCC on the ground that “the cost re-entrusted to a company having a research institute or a department in charge of research and development, out of the research and development expenses that was re-entrusted by the entrusted company to a third party, is reasonable to be recognized as eligible for the tax credit,” and the remainder of the request for a trial was dismissed.

6) Accordingly, on July 11, 2012, the chief of the defendant Sejong District Tax Office recognized the tax credit for the re-entrusted research and development expenses to the Plaintiff CCC, and the companies having exclusive department, and reduced, corrected, and refunded the corporate tax OOO members for the business year from April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition 3").

D. Plaintiff DD (2012Guhap32536)

1) Plaintiff DD, a domestic corporation operating insurance business, entered into a contract with the JJ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “JJ”) holding exclusively responsible department from April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008 to March 31, 2009 to entrust research and development of electronic computer system, such as extension of merities and network improvement.

2) According to the above contract, Plaintiff DD paid the total amount of OO or research and development expenses to JJ (from April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008: OO or OO or from April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009: OO or OO or research and development expenses under the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8827, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the “O or research and development expenses”) and the special tax credit for 30 O or 208 O or 208 O or 208 O or 208 O or 208 O or 207.30,000,000 or 30,000,000 or more (amended by Act No. 8827, Dec. 31, 2007).

3) On December 1, 201, the head of the Defendant Nam-gu Tax Office notified the Plaintiff DD of the expenses that the expenses incurred in re-entrusted to a third party without the JJ’s direct performance of the said research and development expenses (OOOOOO won from April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008, and OOOO won from April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009: OOO won from March 31, 2009) by deeming that the research and development expenses are not eligible for tax credit.

4) On January 5, 2012, Plaintiff DDR appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 5, 2012. On June 28, 2012, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that “The amount re-entrusted to an enterprise holding a department in exclusive charge of research and development expenses that the JJ re-entrusted to a third party on the ground that the expenses re-entrusted to a research institution or an enterprise having a department in exclusive charge of research and development expenses from among the research and development expenses that the entrusted company re-entrusted to a third party should be recognized as eligible for tax credit shall be subject to tax credit for research and human resources development expenses, and the amount corresponding thereto shall be re-entrusted and corrected according to the result

5) Accordingly, on August 10, 2012 after conducting a reinvestigation, the head of the Defendant Nam-gu Tax Office refunded the Plaintiff DD each of the corporate tax for the business year from April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008, and the OOOOOOO(s) in the corporate tax for the business year from April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009 (which remains after the refund as above) (i.e., OOO(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s).

E. Plaintiff EE Bank (2012Guhap38428)

1) The Plaintiff EE Bank, a domestic corporation carrying on financial business, concluded a contract with a large number of entrusted companies, such as GG, with a department in charge in the year 2005, 2007, and 2008, and paid research and development expenses to the above entrusted companies.

2) The Plaintiff EE Bank reported and paid the above research and development expenses [the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7839 of Dec. 31, 2005), and the former Restriction of Special Taxation (amended by Act No. 118827 of Dec. 31, 2007) for the business year 2007, and for the business year 2008, research and development expenses under Article 10 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9272 of Dec. 26, 2008), respectively, by applying the tax credit under Article 10 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9272 of Dec. 26, 2008).

3) The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office decided that the part of the research and development service entrusted by the Plaintiff EE Bank was not eligible for tax credit, and that the part of the research and development service entrusted by the Plaintiff EE Bank was not eligible for tax credit.

4) Accordingly, on December 10, 2010, the director of the defendant South South South South South South South South Korea Tax Office corrected and notified the Plaintiff EE Bank of the correction and notification of the amount of the corporate tax for the business year 2005 (OOOwon) and the corporate tax for the business year 2007 (OOOwon in the research and development expenses). In addition, the head of the defendant South South Korea Tax Office corrected that the amount of the tax credit for research and development expenses excluded from the corporate tax for the business year 2008 was deducted from the amount of the tax to be refunded to the Plaintiff EE Bank due to any other reason for correction. On March 9, 2011, the plaintiff EE Bank requested the refund by adding the above OOOwon to the deductible reduction and exemption tax amount, but rejected on March 25, 2011.

5) On April 19, 201, Plaintiff EE Bank appealed to the part of the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the year 2005, and the part of the disposition of imposition of the OOO0 in the year 2007 corporate tax for the year 2007, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 9, 201, against the disposition of rejection of the above disposition of correction, and filed an appeal with each of the Tax Tribunal on April 19, 201. The Tax Tribunal decided on June 27, 2012 on the ground that the expenses re-entrusted to a company with a research institute or a department in charge of research and development from among the research and development expenses paid by the entrusted company to a third party is reasonable to recognize the expenses subject to the deduction of research and development expenses.

6) Accordingly, the head of the defendant South Korea District Tax Office recognized the tax credit for research and development expenses re-entrusted to an enterprise having a dedicated department, and notified the reduction and correction of OOO members of the corporate tax for 2007 business year, and OO members of the refund OO (additional additional dues for refund) and OO members of the corporate tax (hereinafter referred to as "OO members of the disposition of rejection of the disposition of rejection of OO members of the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for 2005 December 10, 2010 and the part of the disposition of imposition of OO members of the corporate tax for 2007 corporate tax for OO members (i.e., the 2007 disposition of rejection of OO members).

F. Plaintiff F (2012Guhap40834)

1) Plaintiff F, a domestic corporation engaged in financial business, and agricultural and livestock products distribution business, entered into a contract with multiple consignment companies, including GG, holding a dedicated department from January 2008 to December 2009, to entrust the establishment of an electronic computer system, etc.

2) Plaintiff F paid research and development expenses to the above trustee, and imposed and paid corporate tax by deducting the amount of tax payable from the amount of tax payable by the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9272, Dec. 26, 2008; Act No. 9272, Dec. 26, 2008; Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010) in accordance with Article 10 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010).

3) On December 5, 2011, the head of the Defendant Nam-gu Tax Office corrected and notified the Plaintiff FF of the corporate tax for the business year 2008 and the corporate tax for the business year 2009, that the expenses incurred by re-entrusted to a third party, not directly performed by the above trustee, among the research and development expenses OOO members (OOO members for the business year 2008, and OO members for the business year 2009) were not subject to the deduction of the amount of research and development expenses.

4) On March 5, 2012, Plaintiff F had an objection and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 5, 2012. On September 5, 2012, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that “The cost re-entrusted to a company located in a research machine or a department in charge of research and development from among the research and development expenses that the entrusted company re-entrusted to a third party shall be subject to the tax credit” to confirm the research and development service cost performed by the re-entrusted company (limited to the case of holding a research institute or a department in charge) and correct the tax amount for the pertinent business year, and dismiss the request for a trial on the payment of money.”

5) Accordingly, on October 5, 2012, the head of the defendant Nammun District Tax Office notified the Plaintiff F of the reduction and correction of the OOO members of the corporate tax for the business year 2008, and the OO members of the corporate tax refund (the disposition of the OO members of the corporate tax for the business year 2009 was completely revoked, and the disposition of the OO members of the corporate tax for the business year 2008 (i.e., the disposition of the OO members of the corporation tax for the business year 2008 (i.e., the disposition of the OO members of the corporation tax for the business year 2009) was taken.

[Grounds for Recognition] The whole purport of the arguments and arguments by Gap, Gap, Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, and Eul, and Eul, and Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, and Eul, and Eul, Eul, Eul, and Eul, and Eul, and Eul, and Eul, and Eul, and Eul, respectively.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

① Article 10 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 921, Jan. 1, 2010); Article 10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22037, Feb. 18, 2010) [Separate Table 6] provides that "expenses for the entrustment of technology development services, etc. to a research institute or a dedicated department of research and development expenses" among research and development expenses shall be subject to tax credit; it is not allowed to reduce tax benefits without reasonable grounds; ② Article 10 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which provides for tax credit for research and development expenses, provides that the purpose of promoting research and development is to grant more tax credit to taxpayers; ③ The method of receiving technology development services to an institution having a dedicated department, which is a kind of entrustment, may be determined by itself to achieve the purpose of the delegation of technology development; ④ It is not possible for a trustee to request another dedicated department to provide the final tax credit of research and development expenses depending on human resources and technology, and it is unlawful.

2) The defendants' assertion

A) The assertion by the Head of South South Korea Tax Office and the Head of the Paper Tax Office

BB and CCC did not find whether the costs for the entrustment of research and development services claimed by them were used in research and development activities.

B) The defendants' assertion

Expenses for re-entrusted research and development are not eligible for tax credit. Even if the expenses for re-entrusted research and development are eligible for tax credit, the expenses paid to the re-entrusted business that does not hold the exclusive department shall not be eligible for tax credit.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether research and development services are applicable

Article 9 (5) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "the activities to achieve scientific or technical progress, and to develop a new service and service delivery system" in relation to research and development, and Article 9 (5) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11133, Dec. 31, 201) provides that "the activities to achieve scientific or technical development" means activities to achieve research and development. As seen earlier, the services entrusted by plaintiffs BB and CCC are activities to achieve technical development by building a systematic and comprehensive system to enhance core business and service competitiveness, and to achieve optimal and efficient operation of information and communications technology, and the National Tax Service provides that "the research and development services entrusted by a domestic corporation operating a financial insurance business" to an enterprise with a dedicated department for research and development, and that it is not reasonable for the director of the tax office to recognize the new service, and that it is not appropriate for the director of the tax office to exclude the plaintiff's new service from the research and development requirements, based on the premise that it satisfies the requirements of the plaintiff's new service, which is entrusted.

2) Whether a research and development service is subject to tax credit if it is re-entrusted

In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the expenses incurred in re-entrustment of research and development services are not subject to tax credit, and those incurred in re-entrustment of research and development services, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively considering the following circumstances in the entries in subparagraph 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, and 6, and 3, and 3:

A) In light of the principle of no taxation without law, or the requirements for tax exemption or tax exemption, the interpretation of tax laws shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, barring any special circumstances, and it shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds, and in particular, it accords with the principle of fair taxation to strictly interpret the provisions that can be seen as clearly preferential provisions among the requirements for tax exemption or exemption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Du11372, Aug. 20, 2009; 2005Da19163, May 25, 2006).

B) Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Article 6(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act in the case of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21307 of Feb. 4, 2009), "entrusted manufacturing business under the OEM method prescribed by Presidential Decree" is divided into "entrustment" and "re-entrustment" by stipulating that "the manufacturing business under the OEM method is entrusted by the trustor and sub-entrustment of the production and supply of products by entrusting the production of products by the OEM method."

C) However, Article 8(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22037, Feb. 18, 2010); Article 9(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21307, Feb. 18, 2010); Article 9(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21307, Feb. 4, 2009); subparagraph 1(b) of the [Attachment 6] provides that research and development expenses subject to tax credit are "cost for entrusting research and development services, etc. to an institution of domestic or foreign enterprises, such as research institutes or dedicated departments,

D) After February 2, 2012, subparagraph 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act [Separate Table 6] revised by Presidential Decree No. 23590 on February 2, 2012 provides that "the expenses for the entrustment of research and development services in the field of science and technology (including re-entrustment) to institutions, such as domestic and foreign research institutes or dedicated departments, are included in the subject of tax credit, and on this point, "in the reason and main contents of the amendment of the above law, adding expenses for the re-entrustment of general research and development to the subject of tax credit for research and development expenses", and in the revised tax law theory of the National Tax Service's "2012 Tax Act", it seems that "The purpose of the amendment of the above regulations is "in consideration of the reality of re-entrustment of part of the entrusted research and development services without performing all research and development services," and "the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is excluded from the subject of tax credit prior to the amendment 2011.

E) The plaintiffs entrusted the research and development services to the trustee company, and the trustee company consented, and the legal principles on delegation between the plaintiffs and the trustee company are applied. Article 682(1) of the Civil Code provides that "the mandatory shall not allow a third party to perform the delegated affairs on behalf of the mandator without the consent of the mandator or any inevitable reason."

F) The Plaintiffs claim to the effect that it is unfair in violation of the principle of self-responsibility to exclude the tax credit for re-entrustment made by the consignment company under their own responsibility by having the truster, who is the truster, be responsible for the decision that it did not itself. However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiffs are excessively unreasonable or harsh in light of the enormous tax benefits that they enjoy, and thus, they are not liable to the Plaintiffs for the failure to enjoy the benefits of tax credit because they did not conclude such an agreement with the consignment company.

3) Whether the re-trustee is eligible for tax credit where the re-trustee does not hold a research institute or a dedicated department

Even if the expenses incurred in re-entrustment of research and development services fall under the tax credits, and as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the strict interpretation of the provisions that clearly consider the preferential provisions in the provisions on tax reduction and exemption is consistent with the principle of tax equity, and that it does not fall under the tax credits in cases where the re-entrusted company does not have a research institute or a dedicated department, taking into account the following circumstances known in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, and in cases where the research institute

가) 구 조세특례제한법 시행령(2010. 2. 18. 대통령령 제22037호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제8조 제1항， [별표6] 제1호 나목 ①， 구 조세특례제한법 시행령(2009. 2. 4. 대 통령령 제21307호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제9조 제2항， [별표6] 제1호 나목 ①은 연구개발용역을 위탁함에 따른 연구개발비 세액공제에 관하여 그 수탁기관을 ㉮ 고등교육법에 의한 대학 또는 전문대학，㉯ 국 • 공립연구기관，㉰ 정부출연연구기관，㉱ 과학기술분야를 연구하는 국내외의 비영리법인(비영리법인에 부설된 연구기관을 포함한다)， ㉲ 국내외 기업의 연구기관(과학기술분야를 연구하는 경우에 한한다) 또는 '전담부서'，㉳「산업기술연구조합 육성법」 에 의한 산업기술연구조합，㉴ 산업디자인진흥법에 의한 한국디자인진흥원， ㉵ 「국가과학기술 경쟁력 강화를 위한 이공계지원 특별법」 에 의한 연구개발서비스업을 영위하는 기업， ㉶「산업교육진흥 및 산학협력촉진에 관한 법률」 에 의한 산학협력단，㉷ 한국표준산업분류표상 기술시험 ・ 검사 및 분석업을 영위하는 기업으로 제한적으로 열거하고 있다.

Meanwhile, Article 8 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22037, Feb. 18, 2010); Article 8 (1) [Attachment 6] subparagraph 1 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21307, Feb. 4, 2009); Article 9 (2) [Attachment 6] subparagraph 1 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act; subparagraph 1 (a) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Ordinance No. 151, Apr. 20, 2010); Article 7 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 96, Apr. 7, 2009); and Article 7 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Ordinance No. 21307, Apr. 29, 2008>

In addition, Article 7 (1) 2 of the former Technology Development Promotion Act (Amended by Act No. 10445, Mar. 9, 201); Article 15 (1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Technology Development Promotion Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22977, Jun. 24, 2011); Articles 7 and 8 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Technology Development Promotion Act (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Knowledge Economy No. 214, Nov. 25, 201); and Articles 7 and 8 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Technology Development Promotion Act (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology No. 214, Nov. 25, 2011), in order to be recognized as a research institute, research and development work in the field of science and technology shall be mainly conducted by the department and reported to the head of the Korea Industrial Technology Promotion Association entrusted by the Minister of Education, Science and Technology, and the matters reported by each of the agencies shall be determined and announced by the Minister.

As such, the Decree on the Restriction of Special Taxation limits a trustee company to an institution that satisfies certain requirements, and it is not easy to determine whether it constitutes a research and development service, so it is likely that the tax credit system for research and development expenses may be abused, and if a company that is not capable of performing research and development activities carries out such research and development activities, research and development activities may be performed insufficiently, and thus, it seems to operate the tax credit system for the annual development costs objectively and fairly by granting tax credit benefits only for the research and development services performed by each of the above organizations that

B) If research and development services are entrusted to an institution holding a dedicated department as alleged by the Plaintiffs, regardless of whether the dedicated department is owned by the re-entrusted company, expenses incurred in the entrustment are subject to the tax credit for research and development expenses, and it may fall into research and development activities, such as entrusting research and development services to an institution holding a dedicated department and re-entrusted services to an institution holding the dedicated department, and abuse the tax credit system for research and development expenses. In addition, this is contrary to the principle of substantial taxation by granting tax credit based only on the form that research and development services are entrusted to an institution holding the dedicated department, which does not hold the dedicated department, even though the research and

C) The Decree on the Restriction of Special Taxation stipulates that research and development expenses shall be divided into cases of self-research and development, entrustment, and joint research and development, and in cases of self-research and development, personnel expenses of researchers engaged in research and their researchers engaged in research activities in the field of science and technology and of those who directly support their research activities, shall be one of the expenses subject to the tax credit. In this regard, the Seoul High Court (2010Nu25635) ruled that even a researcher who works for a dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, each of the dispositions in this case is legitimate, and all of the plaintiffs' claims are without merit.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are all dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.