Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap59842 ( May 30, 2014)

Article 18-3 (4) of the Corporate Tax Act is difficult to deem that Article 18-2 (1) 14 (c) of the Corporate Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis.

The meaning of "Article 18-3 of the Corporate Tax Act" by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 18-2 (1) (4) of the Corporate Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the amount calculated as prescribed by the Presidential Decree in consideration of its language, content and legislative intent, etc. (the provisions of this case shall apply mutatis mutandis to the exception provided for in the proviso of Article 18-2 (1) (4) of the Corporate Tax Act)

Article 18-2 (Non-Inclusion of Holding Company's Received Dividend Amount in gross income of the former Corporate Tax Act

2014Nu53898 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

AA Life Insurance Corporation

The director of the tax office

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 of the Defendant imposed corporate tax of KRW 0,000,000,000 for the business year 2007, June 5, 2012, and KRW 0,000,000,000 for the business year 2008, October 5, 2012, and KRW 0,000,00,000,000 for the business year 209 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

The instant provision was introduced in consideration of the characteristics of institutional investors, regardless of whether a financial holding company is a subsidiary. As such, if a dividend corporation is an institutional investor, it should be recognized that the subsidiary of the financial holding company is an institutional investor as well as exclusion from gross income. This can clearly confirm the legislative intent through the interpretation of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, which is the competent authority in the process of amending

B. Determination

In full view of the provisions of the relevant corporate tax laws and regulations applicable to the disposition of this case, including Article 18-3(1)4 and Article 18-2(1)4 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 17-2(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act,

Income for the purpose of double taxation adjustment on the dividend income of an ordinary domestic corporation such as the Plaintiff

Under Article 18-3 of the Corporate Tax Act, the double taxation adjustment on the dividend income of a holding company

section 18-2 of the Corporate Tax Act provides for the exclusion of profits dividends from taxable income

In addition, the proviso of Article 18-2 (1) 4 of the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 18-2 (1) 4 (a), (b), and (c) of the Corporate Tax Act provide for both the "subsidiary" under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act or the "Financial Holding Companies Act". In full view of all the circumstances cited earlier, if a dividend corporation is an institutional investor, it cannot be deemed that the provision of this case is applicable mutatis mutandis to the plaintiff as an ordinary corporation.

Furthermore, the amendment of Articles 18-2 and 18-3 of the Corporate Tax Act is aimed at excluding the inclusion of the subsidiaries in the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the dividends from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the exclusion from the dividends.

3. Conclusion

Thus, 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 January 30, 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).