Seoul Administrative Court-2013-Gu Partnership-59729 ( October 20, 2014)

The proviso to Article 18-2 (1) 4 and (c) of the Corporate Tax Act shall not apply to a company other than a financial holding company.

The proviso to Article 18-2 (1) 4 and (c) of the Corporate Tax Act shall not apply to companies, other than financial holding companies, to the exclusion of income dividends from taxable income.

2014Nu56743 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

AA Fire Marine Insurance Corporation

The director of the tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap59729 decided June 20, 2014

January 15, 2015

February 12, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Each disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on June 5, 2012 on the imposition of the corporate tax OO (including additional taxes), OOO (including additional taxes), 2008 business year 2008 business year 5 October 2012, OO (including additional taxes) and OOO (including additional taxes) of corporate tax for the business year 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why the court should explain in this decision are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the plaintiff's argument as stated in Paragraph 2 below, and therefore, it shall accept it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Considering the circumstances that Article 18-2(1)4 proviso (c) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9267 of Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter “former Corporate Tax Act”) with respect to a financial holding company is applicable mutatis mutandis to an ordinary company and thus unreasonable results arise, it is reasonable to deem that the pertinent provision may apply mutatis mutandis to the Plaintiff, a general company, and thus, the instant disposition based on a different premise should be revoked.

B. Determination

In full view of the provisions of the corporate tax law applicable to the disposition of this case, such as Article 18-3 (1) 4 and Article 18-2 (1) 4 of the former Corporate Tax Act and Article 17-2 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21302 of Feb. 4, 2009), the system for exclusion of income dividends for the adjustment of double taxation on the dividend income of a general domestic corporation like the Plaintiff is separate under Article 18-3 of the former Corporate Tax Act, Article 18-2 of the former Corporate Tax Act, and Article 18-2 of the former Corporate Tax Act, Article 18-2 (1) 4 of the former Corporate Tax Act, Article 18-2 (1) 4 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21302 of Feb. 4, 2009) of the former Corporate Tax Act, and Article 17-2 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed (On the other hand, considering all the circumstances asserted in the reference document of February 4, 2015, which was submitted by the plaintiff after the date of closing the argument of this case, it is insufficient to reverse the above judgment).