1. The imposition of corporate tax of KRW 50,000,000, that the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on August 23, 2016 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Details of the disposition

On March 28, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired 6,250,000 shares (hereinafter referred to as “instant shares”) issued from Vietnam Co., Ltd., Ltd., a Japanese corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Vuugo”), a domestic corporation, and paid 24,821,200,000 won for the purchase price. In this regard, the Plaintiff did not submit a statement of payment to the Defendant.

Meanwhile, on October 24, 2002, Vietnam acquired the above-mentioned shares as total acquisition value of KRW 31,250,000,000 per share (5,000 per share) from October 24, 202.

The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office notified the Defendant of taxation data on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to submit a statement of payment pursuant to Article 120-2(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12850, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter “the Act”) while paying the purchase price of the outstanding shares in Beuna. Accordingly, on August 23, 2016, the Defendant imposed penalty tax on the Plaintiff for failing to submit a statement of payment pursuant to Article 76(7) of the Act (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter “the Act”) on the ground that the provision on the limit of additional tax for small and medium enterprises under Article 49(1)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 10, 2016, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the application on January 19, 2017.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional number), and the purport of the entire pleading, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case imposes an obligation to submit a statement of payment on a person who pays domestic source income under Article 93 to a foreign corporation. However, the Plaintiff did not have domestic source income as provided for in Article 93 of the Act due to the occurrence of losses from the transfer of stocks in question.