If the relocated employee is the relocated employee

During the process of moving from the headquarters to the relocated headquarters, the number of employees temporarily relocated from the relocated headquarters to the relocated headquarters shall be the number of employees of the relocated headquarters under Article 63-2 (2) 2 (b) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

Article 63-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2014Guhap100312

BB

*The Director of the District Tax Office

December 18, 2014

February 12, 2015

1. Disposition imposing corporate tax of KRW 33,008,054 on the Plaintiff on August 3, 2011 by the Defendant for the business year 2006

More than KRW 307,486,950 among them, and imposition of KRW 277,575,147 of corporate tax for the business year 2007

Imposition of more than KRW 183,539,802 among the portion, and imposition of KRW 522,751,419 of corporate tax for the business year 2008

Division of more than 391,87,574 of the disposition, and 363,915,672 of the corporate tax for the business year 2009

Over KRW 301,568,474 of the disposition, and over KRW 690,541,579 of the corporate tax for the business year 2010

Each disposition of imposition exceeding 614,149,58 won shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 4/5 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

Defendant 327,729,080, 2007, corporate tax for the business year 2006 against Plaintiff on August 3, 2011

Corporate tax for a business year 254,320,620, corporate tax for a business year 2008 493,101,840, and for a business year 2009

Each disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 354,304,680, and KRW 677,394,920 for the business year 2010 shall be taken.

(w).

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the whole purport of the pleadings is added to each entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

A. On November 3, 1998, the Plaintiff was established by dividing the engineering part, which was in charge of the follow-up management of production process and equipment, in a company aa (hereinafter referred to as “a”), from July 29, 2002, operated an engineering-related business in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Seoul Metropolitan Area under the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act (hereinafter referred to as “the headquarters prior to relocation”), and moved its head office to bb. 360-3 (hereinafter referred to as “the headquarters prior to relocation”) in the e472 (hereinafter referred to as “the headquarters prior to relocation”), which was located in the Seoul Metropolitan Area under the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act.

B. Article 63-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8827 of Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same "former Restriction of Special Taxation Act") provides that the corporation that moved its head office to an area other than the Seoul Metropolitan area shall be exempted from the prescribed corporate tax. The Plaintiff was exempted from the corporate tax for the amount equivalent to the amount calculated by multiplying the amount of the total annual salary received by the total annual salary received by the employees working at the relocated head office for the pertinent taxable year by the "the amount obtained by subtracting the transfer margin of the right to acquire land, buildings and real estate from the tax base for the pertinent taxable year for the reason that the relocated head office was reported and paid corporate tax from 2006 to the business year other than the Seoul Metropolitan area and transferred the relocated head office to the area outside the Seoul Metropolitan area" under Article 63-2(2)2

C. The commissioner of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office shall conduct a tax investigation on the Plaintiff from May 23, 2011 to June 15, 2011

As a result, the amount of corporate tax reduction and exemption stipulated in Article 63-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act shall be calculated.

(2) In case of the relocation of the head office, the performance bonus and the benefits of the daily worker shall be included in the total amount of salaries;

The benefits paid shall be included in the total amount of salaries, and the head office shall not be the head office before the relocation of the head office.

For employees who work in a place of business located in the assembly site located in the Gu or in the Gu of his/her own country;

It is not deducted from the total amount of wages received after relocation by the relocated head office.

The corporate tax for the business year 2006 for the plaintiff on August 3, 2011, after re-calculationing the same.

38,267,030 won, corporate tax for the business year 2007 30,829,400 won, and corporate tax for the business year 2008

52,40,90 won, 373,526,670 won, and corporate tax for the business year 2009

703,688,230 won was corrected and notified. However, during the re-calculation process, the defendant calculated the "total amount of salaries received after the relocation of the head office staff" under Article 63-2 (2) 2 (b) of the former Act by adding up the salaries received at the relocated office.

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on October 21, 201, asserting that it is unfair to exclude the reduction or exemption corresponding to the number of persons who worked at the d assembly site located in the drown-si in Busan Metropolitan City and at the drown-si business site located in the drupe-si in the drupe-si drup-si, and that it is improper to exclude the reduction or exemption corresponding to the number of persons employed at the relocated head office from among the newly employed persons at the relocated head office and working at the relocated head office.

E. On October 29, 2013, the Tax Tribunal served on the Plaintiff’s above assertion at the 's 'Titsung workplace’.

Transfer from among the benefits paid for the number of persons transferred to the former head office and the persons newly employed at the relocated head office.

The exemption from benefits corresponding to the period of service at the head office shall be granted and the remainder shall be claimed.

In order to the effect that the corporate tax imposed on August 3, 201, supra, was not accepted, the decision was made on September 2006 to December 2, 201 that "the tax base and amount of tax shall be corrected according to the result of re-calculated based on the results of the re-calculated by the number of employees working at the relocated head office based on the total amount of wages received after the relocation of the benefits from September 2006 to the date of the relocated head office."

F. The Defendant re-calculated the Plaintiff’s corporate tax reduction and exemption pursuant to the purport of the aforementioned decision of the Tax Tribunal on November 13, 201, and imposed corporate tax on August 3, 201 for the business year 33,008,054 won, corporate tax for the business year 2006, corporate tax for the business year 277,575,147, and corporate tax for the business year 2007.

522,751,419, corporate tax for the business year 2009, 363,915,672, and corporate tax for the business year 2010

690,541,579 won was reduced due to the imposition of 690,579 won (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Article 63-2 (2) 2 (b) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act refers to the annual average number of regular employees (the number of regular employees as of the end of each month and the number calculated by dividing it by the number of months) of the number of regular employees employed at the relocated main office pursuant to Article 63-2 (3) of the same Act. Thus, in the application of Article 63-2 (2) 2 (b) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act to the plaintiff, the defendant uses the method of calculating the annual average number of employees employed at the relocated main office in calculating the total number of employees employed at the relocated main office, and thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful since the defendant uses the method of calculating the total number of regular employees employed at the relocated main office in calculating the total number of employees employed at the relocated main office.

(2) According to Article 63-2(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the number of employees engaged in the affairs at the headquarters outside the Seoul Metropolitan area after the taxable year to which the date two years retroactively elapsed belongs shall be excluded from the "number of employees at the relocated headquarters". However, since the Plaintiff temporarily and temporarily moved to the relocated headquarters in the process of moving the relocated headquarters to the relocated headquarters, the number of employees at the relocated headquarters to the relocated headquarters after the 18 shall not be the "number of employees who are engaged in the affairs at the relocated headquarters to the relocated headquarters" under the above Article 63-2(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act. Nevertheless, the Defendant deemed the number of employees at the relocated headquarters to the relocated headquarters to be the "number of employees at the relocated headquarters to the relocated headquarters" under the premise that the employees at the relocated headquarters outside the Seoul Metropolitan area were excluded from the number of employees at the relocated headquarters, the instant disposition in

(3) Even if 18 employees working at the d assembly site at the relocated head office are those working at the relocated head office from among those who work at the head office outside the Seoul Metropolitan area to the relocated head office, the said 3 employees shall not be excluded from the relocated head office, since those who work at the head office from the d assembly site to the relocated head office from the d assembly site, since they are those who work at the relocated head office.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. The judgment of this Court

(1) With respect to the assertion on the method of calculating total amount of allowances, Article 63-2(2)2(a) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act ("the Special Act") provides that corporate tax shall be reduced or exempted for the claim related to the method of calculating the total amount of allowances, which is calculated by subtracting the transfer margin of the rights to acquire land, buildings, and real estate from the tax base for the pertinent taxable year, and "the annual average number of full-time employees working at the headquarters located outside the Seoul Metropolitan area after the relocation of the entire number of corporations", and "the number of full-time employees working at the headquarters located outside the Seoul Metropolitan area" under paragraph (3) of the same Article refers to the number of employees calculated by subtracting the annual number of employees working at the headquarters outside the Seoul Metropolitan area from the annual average number of employees working at the headquarters after the relocation of the headquarters outside the Seoul Metropolitan area (hereafter in this Article, "the number of full-time employees working at the headquarters outside the Seoul Metropolitan area and then dividing it by the number of employees working at the headquarters after the relocation."

In interpreting the above provision as it is, the "total amount of wages received after the relocation of the employee working at the relocated headquarters" under Article 2 (2) 2 (b) of the same Act refers to the total amount of wages received after the annual average of the number of regular workers employed at the relocated headquarters divided by the number of months. However, under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of the tax law shall be interpreted in accordance with the law unless there are special circumstances, and it shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. However, in cases where there is a need to clarify its meaning through the interpretation between the laws and regulations, it is inevitable to interpret the same purpose in light of the legislative intent and purpose to the extent that it does not undermine legal stability and predictability oriented by the principle of no taxation without law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du4438, Feb. 15, 2008). Since the concept of the annual average number of workers is not specified individually, it is impossible to calculate the total amount of wages for one year when all workers are changed.

Article 63-2 (2) 2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that corporate tax shall be reduced or exempted for the amount calculated by applying the smaller of the annual total amount of wages received by the employees working at the relocated relocated head office for the pertinent taxable year to the total annual total amount of wages received by the entire employees of the corporation (b) and the ratio (if the ratio is less than 50/10, it shall be deemed zero) among the total number of employees working at the relocated head office and at the relocated head office for the pertinent taxable year to the total number of employees at the relocated head office for the pertinent taxable year (if the ratio is less than 50/10, it shall be deemed zero). If it is interpreted that the total amount of wages received by the employees at the relocated head office under the above item (b) as prescribed in paragraph (3) is the total annual total amount of wages received by the employees at the relocated head office for the pertinent taxable year, as seen earlier, the ratio under the above item (b) above is difficult to calculate the annual total amount of wages. This interpretation goes against Article 2 (2).

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances, it is reasonable to interpret that Article 63-2(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act does not apply to cases where the number of regular employees working at the relocated head office prescribed in Article 63-2(2)2(b) of the same Act is determined only when the number of employees working at the relocated head office prescribed in Article 63-2(3) of the same Act is determined. Ultimately, the number of employees working at the relocated head office prescribed in Article 63-2(2)2(b) of the same Act shall be construed as excluding the number of regular employees working at the relocated head office (excluding the number of employees working at the relocated head office in the area outside the Seoul Metropolitan area after the taxable year to which the date on which two years elapse retroactively from the date of relocation belongs) from the number of employees working at the relocated head office to the relocated head office for the taxable year to which the date on which three years retroactively belongs. In such cases

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not acceptable on the premise that the total amount of allowance received by the relocated head’s employee under Article 63-2(2)2(b) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act means the total amount of allowance received annually by

(2) As to the argument regarding the DD assembly site

(A) Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 8, and the whole purport of arguments:

① A, a parent company of the Plaintiff, determined TV partial BLU production in the Acheon Factory, and demanded the Plaintiff to manufacture and supply close-quarterss in the vicinity of the said astronomical Factory site. On June 23, 2004, the Plaintiff prepared a plan to implement factory relocation in order to meet the requirements of Aa and to reduce logistics mobility costs and to complete prompt response stay, the Plaintiff intended to purchase a factory site by selecting either “6,500 square meters of land located in the drown-si, Asan City and 4,400 square meters of land located on the drown-si, Asan City.

② 원고의 이사회는 2004. 8. 3. aa의 요청에 따라 조립장을 이전할 경우 클린룸의 확보가 필요한데 원고가 화성시에 확보한 공장부지는 이에 적합하지 아니하여 아산시 dd면에 공장부지 6,000〜8,000평을 구입하기로 결의하였다.

③ Around March 2005, the Plaintiff decided to rent a factory site instead of purchasing the factory site on the d side of Asan City, and the Plaintiff’s report on the lease of the assembly site related thereto is still in a state where “the location and conditions relating to the relocation of the headquarters prior to the relocation is not yet determined, but the necessity of the establishment and assembly site is recognized to expand the business through the manufacture of the studio equipment and build customers’ trust. Temporary lease of the assembly site. As the cost of environmental improvement should be minimized. Since the relocation of the headquarters prior to the relocation can be achieved within the contract period, it shall be reflected in the preparation of the lease contract. This shall be reflected at the time of the formation of the lease contract. This shall be reflected in the relocation of the headquarters prior to the relocation of the headquarters to the relocated headquarters. d) The Plaintiff’s report on the lease of

④ On April 15, 2005, the Plaintiff used part of 130 million won as security deposit, monthly rent of 13 million won, and 18 persons leased and working as assembly sites, from April 18, 2005 to April 17, 2006, with the term of lease of 123 square meters on the ground of the 2 factory Dong of the 123rd ground building.

⑤ Around December 2005, the Plaintiff purchased at the relocated head office b. B. 360-3 additional b. A. around February 2006, the Plaintiff started the new construction at the relocated head office with a building permit granted on or around February 15, 2006. The Plaintiff, from May 30, 2006, had the employees working at the relocated head office work at the fireproof workplace, d & D assembly site, etc., and transferred all the employees working at the d &d assembly head office to the relocated head office as the relocated head office was completed on or around September 2006.

(6) If 18 persons transferred to the relocated head office from the d assembly place to the relocated head office are calculated the corporate tax amount of the Plaintiff by re-calculationing the amount of corporate tax reduction and exemption on the premise that they correspond to the "employee working force of the relocated head office" under Article 63-2 (2) (b) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the corporate tax for the business year 2006 is 307,486,950 won, 183,539,802 won for the business year 2007, 391,87,577,574 won for the business year 2008, corporate tax for the business year 2008, 301,568,474 won for the business year 209, and the corporate tax for the business year

(B) Determination

According to Article 63-2 (3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the number of employees engaged in the head office affairs in the area outside the Seoul Metropolitan area after the taxable year to which the date of relocation belongs, excluding the number of employees engaged in the head office affairs in the area outside the Seoul Metropolitan area to which the date of relocation belongs, shall be calculated. The purpose of Article 63-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is to grant the benefits of corporate tax reduction or exemption to the company that relocates the head office or factory from the Seoul Metropolitan area to the area outside the Seoul Metropolitan area, but to achieve substantial regional balanced development and the suppression of overconcentration in the Seoul Metropolitan area by granting the benefits corresponding to the number of employees employed in the area outside the Seoul Metropolitan area and to the extent that the employees engaged in the head office affairs in the area outside the Seoul Metropolitan area move to the relocated head office, it is reasonable to interpret Article 63-2 (3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act to exclude the employees engaged in the head office affairs at the relocated

As to this case, the Plaintiff was seeking to move the main business base to the YY to the YY as the Plaintiff’s parent company and the main trader, and the Plaintiff was demanding the Plaintiff to manufacture and supply the main business base in the vicinity of the YY. However, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff was seeking to move the main business base to the YYY at the time of the lease of the d/D assembly site as of April 15, 2005; (b) the Plaintiff failed to secure the site within the d/D assembly site until the d/D assembly site at the d/D assembly site at the d/D assembly site at the d/D assembly site at the d/D assembly site but intended to temporarily operate the d/D assembly site until the relocated head office at the d/D assembly site at the d/D assembly site at the d/D assembly site at the d/D assembly site at the d/D assembly site at the 18/2 office at the d/D assembly site at the relocated.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the part of the disposition of this case which exceeds the amount calculated on the premise that 18 employees of the d assembly site of this case fall under the above 33,08,054 won of corporate tax for 2006; the part which exceeds 307,486,950 won of corporate tax for 2006; the part which exceeds 183,539,802 won of corporate tax for 277,575,147; the part which exceeds 391,87,574 won of corporate tax for 2008; the part which exceeds 391,568,474 won of corporate tax for 2009; the part which exceeds 363,915,672 won of corporate tax for 363,915,672 won of corporate tax for 209; and the part which exceeds 690,541,579,979 won of corporate tax for 27,4198.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.