beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Defendant’s corporate tax against the Plaintiff for the business year 207, which was April 4, 2012, 229,334.
Reasons
1. The reasons for this part of the disposition are as follows, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 2, No. 8 to No. 5) is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated in the second to No. 5). As such, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of
Qualcomm’s “Cap” in Part 12 of Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court was written as “ Qualcomm’s”, and the “purchase” in Part 14 was written as “purchase” regardless of purchase.
Under the fourth sentence of the first instance court's decision, the following "from DNA data" shall be added to "from the fourth sentence of the first instance court's decision," " from the Royde Co., Ltd., 2010," "Nyn data" shall be used by using "Nyn data" as "Nyn data or Royd," and "the subsidiary of the Nyn data" in the fifth sentence shall be deleted, and "for this reason" shall be "for this reason, for the plaintiff to fall under the 8th sentence "," the use fee paid to UCT (referring to Nyn data) located in the United States and for the omission of withholding of the user fee paid to Nyyd in the Hong Kong located in the Hong Kong."
Under the fourth sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, the phrase ".... stated the purport of the claim" in the 9, 10th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance was "(229,334,561 won of corporate tax on April 4, 2012, 207, 337,059,606 won of corporate tax on August 1, 2012, 207, and 603,95,345 won of corporate tax on September 5, 2012, 208, 362,947,352 won of corporate tax on the business year 209, 13,695,805 won of corporate tax on the business year 13,69,805 won of corporate tax on the business year 2010 and additional tax on each of them were "the first sentence of the judgment of first instance (hereinafter referred to as "the second sentence of first instance") 1 to 3.."
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful