Daejeon District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-100128 ( October 05, 2016)

Whether it falls under the benefits of the relocated relocated relocated head office to the local area;

Since the work details performed at the relocated head office are unclear, it cannot be viewed as the salary of the relocated head office.

Article 63-2 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2016Nu13074 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

○○○○ Corporation

Head of the Busan District Tax Office

Daejeon District Court 2015Guhap100128 ( October 05, 2016)

March 2, 2017

March 23, 2017

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed;

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 1,038,095,855 for the business year 2007 against the Plaintiff on March 28, 2013 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the case where the court of first instance adopted the judgment as follows 3. Thus, it shall accept it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Parts to be dried;

○ Up to 6 pages 4, 21 to 5 are as follows.

【3) Although the Plaintiff’s employees were engaged in the automobile parts manufacturing business or preparation for the operation of the said manufacturing business, the instant disposition that calculated the corporate tax reduction or exemption rate by excluding the said employees from the relocated head office on the ground that the said industry is newly operated after the Plaintiff moved its head office.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the reason for disposition should be added to the time when aa and BB actually entered at the relocated head office is around March 2008, and that the plaintiff's exemption and reduction rate of the relevant corporate tax for the business year of 2007 should be excluded from the working members at the relocated head. However, Aa, BB shall enter the relocated head office on November 5, 2007, and as a result, (a) and BB shall carry out preparatory affairs for the operation of the motor vehicle parts manufacturing business, and receive benefits and bonuses in return for the provision of such labor, they shall be included in the working members at

○ 6 pages 11-16 shall be deleted.

○ 7 Parts 2(2)(4-5) and 8(2)(1-2) shall be deleted. The parts of paragraphs 8-12(4) and 5 are as follows.

Whether “4) Aaa, bbb is the employee of the relocated head office.”

First, in light of the following circumstances, as to whether A and BB actually worked at the relocated head office within the period of 2007 (the addition of the aforementioned grounds to the grounds for the disposition of this case is within the scope of maintaining the identity of the disposition, so permitted) the above facts and evidence set forth above, together with the purport of Gap evidence No. 11, Eul evidence No. 3-1, Eul evidence No. 3-2, Eul evidence No. 8 and 16, each of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence No. 8-1, 2, and 13, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had worked at the relocated head office within the period of 2007 from November 5, 2007 to December 31, 2007, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had actually worked at the relocated head office within the relocated head office within the period of 200a, 200, 300,000.

B) The Plaintiff asserted that the relocated head office had been in charge of the manufacturing business of automobile parts since March 2008, and that aa and bbbb had been in charge of the manufacturing business of automobile parts, not the manufacture business of automobile parts, but aa had been in charge of the overall business under the relocation of the head office as a general director, and BB had been in charge of aa and accounting and general business under Aa, but in this regard, aa has failed to clearly state the details of the business performed by aa and a leaps, and Aa has stated that in the investigation process for the instant disposition, BB had been in charge of only the manufacture of automatic parts even after entry at the relocated head office.

C) As above, under the circumstances where (a) and (b) did not confirm the detailed business performance details of the business performance of the relocated head office from November 5, 2007 to December 31, 2007, and (b) cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff actually engaged in the automobile parts manufacturing business until March 2008, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have actually engaged in the Plaintiff’s automatic parts manufacturing business; (d) the annual salary contract (i.e., the evidence No. 8-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 8-2) made between the Plaintiff, Aaa, and Bb were paid for the actual provision of labor; and (ii) the annual salary contract made between the Plaintiff and the relocated head office as of November 5, 2008 (the Plaintiff’s assertion that this is an obvious clerical error, but it is difficult to obtain the above annual salary from the actual working employee at the relocated head office in light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not have been recognized as having actually engaged in the Plaintiff’s automatic parts manufacturing business.

Therefore, the instant disposition is legitimate on the premise that the Plaintiff’s number of employees at the relocated head office does not fall under e, fff, cc, dd, Aa, bb, among those reported by the Plaintiff as employees at the relocated head office.”

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant is unfair, so it is revoked and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed.