logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014. 04. 30. 선고 2013누20204 판결
연구개발 용역을 의뢰받은 수탁자가 그 용역의 일부를 제3자에게 위탁한 경우 연구및인력개발비세액공제 해당 여부[국패]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap30219 ( October 14, 2013)

Title

Where a trustee entrusted with research and development services partially entrusts such services to a third party, whether such services fall under a tax credit for research and human resources development expenses.

Summary

If a trustee entrusted with research and development services re-entrusted such services to a third party, it is reasonable to view that such services are eligible for tax credit even if the re-entrusted company does not hold the research institute or the exclusive department

Cases

2013Nu204 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

Plaintiff, Appellant

AA Financial Investment Company

Defendant, appellant and appellant

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

Judgment of the first instance court

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap30219 decided June 14, 2013

Conclusion of Pleadings

March 19, 2014

Imposition of Judgment

April 30, 2014

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the corporate tax belonging to the business year from April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009 against the Plaintiff on March 7, 2011 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

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

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is the same as that of the first instance court, and thus, it shall be accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (it is difficult to view the instant disposition as lawful even if the Defendant considered the respective descriptions of the evidence No. 2 and 3 additionally submitted

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

arrow