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

The defendant's rejection of the claim for correction against the plaintiff on June 18, 2010 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

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

The reasons why this Court is used for this case are as follows. The reasons for the judgment of the court of the first instance shall be as follows: Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

O 7 The second second is as follows:

In 206, the Plaintiff paid a normal interest by 2006, since the dormant deposit included in the calculation of the extinctive prescription period in the calculation of earnings in the year of 2006 is a deposit for which five years have elapsed since the maturity date or the date of the last transaction. Since the deposit has not expired until five years have passed from the date of maturity or the date of the last transaction, the Plaintiff paid a normal interest by 2006. Since the extinctive prescription has been interrupted in 2006, the final interest payment was suspended, and the deposit at maturity in 2001 or the date of the transaction was terminated, and the extinctive prescription has not been completed in 2006. In this case, it was erroneous for the Plaintiff to report and pay corporate tax by including the Plaintiff in gross income. The Defendant must accept

From the fourth fifth to the fifth fifth half of theO, the following is raised:

Since the Plaintiff’s dormant deposit included in gross income in the year 2006 was not completed, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion does not necessarily need to be determined, but is examined.

A creditor’s right is extinguished even if there is no recourse by the parties upon the completion of the extinctive prescription. A creditor’s right is extinguished if the period of five years elapsed without interruption of the extinctive prescription, such as approval of the obligation with respect to a deposit, becomes final and conclusive upon the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, and the financial institution’s obligation becomes final and conclusive upon the expiration of the extinctive prescription period. Such effect shall be deemed to have become final and conclusive upon the completion of the extinctive prescription. The following grounds are generally established: (i) When the Plaintiff continues to pay interest upon the Plaintiff’s request, the customer makes payments for the completion of the extinctive prescription and makes it possible for the customer to confirm his/her right through Internet banking or telesing banks. (ii) The Plaintiff promotions through the media or the place of business to publicize the fact that the obligation of the deposit is not extinguished even after five years have elapsed from the date of the final transaction, and the Financial Supervisory Service, which is a supervisory institution, demands the customer to return the deposit to his/her customer at any time.

① However, according to the internal rules, the Plaintiff shall treat the deposit as miscellaneous income and, if there is a claim for refund from the deposit holder, pay it as losses following the payment. It is limited to the Plaintiff’s deposit in order to keep the customer’s trust out of trust. ② According to Article 62(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21302 of Feb. 4, 2009), loans, etc., the extinctive prescription of which has been completed, shall be deemed as losses for the business year which includes the date on which the pertinent cause occurred. Accordingly, upon the expiration of the extinctive prescription, it appears that the creditor’s profit has become definite to the obligor.

The plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit.

2. Conclusion