Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act

2. The Defendant limited to the Plaintiff on January 2, 2013:

(a) imposition of 440,514,610 won (including additional taxes) of the corporate tax for the business year 2008;

(b) imposition of KRW 607,204,680 (including additional taxes) of the corporate tax for the business year 2009 (10,867,540)

portion exceeding 100,000

(c)the imposition of 3,527,150 won (including additional taxes) of the corporate tax for the business year 2010;

(d) Disposition of imposition of 418,392,90 won (including additional taxes) of the corporate tax for the business year 2011;

(including additional duties);

Each cancellation shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be four minutes, one of which shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remaining three of them shall be borne by the defendant, respectively.

The Defendant’s corporate tax of 440,514,610 won for the business year 2008 against the Plaintiff on January 2, 2013 (additional tax)

(B) a disposition of imposition, 607,204,680 (including additional tax) of corporate tax for the business year 2009

Part exceeding 3,551,431 won, 3,527,150 won (including additional taxes) of corporate tax for the business year 2010

The decision that the disposition of imposition of tax of KRW 529,544,470 (including additional tax) shall be revoked for the business year 201.

2. Purport of appeal

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed.

The court of first instance shall explain the circumstances of the disposition, the plaintiff's assertion, and the relevant statutes.

As such, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is the same as the relevant part of the grounds for appeal.

This shall be cited by the main sentence.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of illegality in inclusion in the calculation of earnings of the processed sales price of this case

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: 1) The proceeds from the processing sales of this case among the part of the "judgment" under paragraph (2).

As to the allegation of illegality in inclusion, except for the addition of the following items at the end of paragraph (a) of the same item, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In other words, in the event that the processing sales and processing expenses are counted simultaneously, the increase in gross income as much as the processing sales increases.

Inasmuch as the amount of deductible expenses increases to the amount of processing expenses, the overall impact on the tax base of corporate tax as a whole.

However, if the processing sales, which was included as above, are excluded from gross income, and the processing expenses are not included in gross income, and if the processing sales are again included in gross income, then the tax base of corporate tax increases due to the portion included in gross income with miscellaneous income.

From this point of view, if there are both processing sales and processing expenses, the processing sales.

The defendant's specific circumstances that considerable amount of net income belongs to the plaintiff and increase the plaintiff's net income.

that should be proved to be that the processing sales are included, and at the same time, the amount is equal to that of the processing sales.

It should not be limited to cases where the processing cost has been appropriated.

B. As to the allegation that the transfer of the processed sales claim of this case was illegal in the calculation of earnings from debt exemption

1) The burden of proof

According to Article 15(1) and (3) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 11 subparag. 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the reduced amount of liabilities due to the exemption or extinguishment of liabilities is included in the gross income. As seen earlier, the tax authority is in principle responsible for proving the amount of profits to be included in the gross income, which is the basis for determining the amount of income which is the corporate tax base. As such, the Defendant must prove the fact that the Plaintiff’s credit purchase liability against the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ at the time of transferring the instant processed sales claim to the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ on January 10, 20

(ii) evidence and assertion additionally submitted in the trial;

On December 2009, the Plaintiff asserted that the credit purchase amount against △△△△△△△△△△ was processed on January 10, 201, which was entered as the result of the transfer of the processed credit to △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and that the Plaintiff paid 80 million won to △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and that the Plaintiff’s above assertion was accepted in the first instance trial.

The defendant shall additionally submit an account book, etc. confiscated by the plaintiff at the trial.

On January 10, 2011, the plaintiff asserted that △△△△△△△△△△△△△ was proved to have a debt of KRW 80 million.

[1] Although the disposition of this case was premised on the premise that the plaintiff had received the benefit of exemption from the obligation equivalent to KRW 803,061,298, the defendant also asserted that the benefit of exemption from the obligation of the plaintiff due to the transfer of the processed sales claims of this case was KRW 800,000,000 in the lawsuit of this case, recognizing that the defendant was a third party not △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ in the lawsuit of this case.

As to this, the Plaintiff received 80 million won from the end of December 2009 at △△△△△△△△△, which was received from the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff and △△△△△△△△ on the wind that accounts for short-term loans as repayment.

On May 31, 2010, the plaintiff asserts that there was a difference in the accounting records of △△△△△△ on May 31, 2010, while paying KRW 900,000 to △△△△△△△△△△, the plaintiff merely deals with the difference by accounting as if he paid KRW 100,000 and

3) Whether the Plaintiff’s credit purchase debt amount amounting to KRW 800 million as of January 10, 201 exists

The fact that the Plaintiff transferred the instant processed sales claim to △△△△△△△△△△△ on January 10, 201 is reasonable.

There is no dispute between the deceased and the deceased, and according to Gap evidence Nos. 15, 25, 29, 30, 39, 40, 41, Eul evidence Nos. 40, 40, 41, Eul evidence Nos. 42, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 10, the plaintiff's account under his/her name was withdrawn from one bank account under his/her name to one of the 300 million won of December 29, 2009, 30, 31. 30 million won of the same month, and delivered a cashier's checks to an all-round, and then he/she deposited the above checks into one bank account in the name of △△△△△△△△△△△ on the same day, the plaintiff transferred KRW 90,000,000 to the above bank account on May 31, 201, and the plaintiff and △△△△△△△△△△.

Considering the following circumstances in light of the fact of recognition as above, January 10, 2011

It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff had 800 million won of credit purchase debt at △△△△△△△△.

In addition, on January 10, 201, the Plaintiff transferred the instant processed sales claim to △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, thereby making profits from the exemption of liability amounting to KRW 800 million, and thus, should be included in the gross income.

(1) A taxpayer’s report, etc. submitted by him must be presumed to be true, and the Plaintiff

B. Even in any of the accounting books of △△△△△△△△△△△, the Plaintiff at the time of January 10, 201, as shown in attached Table 1, deemed that there was 80 million won of credit purchase debt at △△△△△△△△△

The plaintiff on May 31, 2010 in order to make the accounting books of the plaintiff and △△△△△△△ coincide with the plaintiff.

△△△△△△△ shall be treated as discharging KRW 900 million, but only KRW 100,000,000.

one of the parties alleged to have been

[2] Considering that the actual representative director and the controlling shareholder of the Plaintiff and △△△△△△△△△ are the same person, it is difficult to accept the fact that the accounting of the two companies at the end of December 2009 differs from each other by mistake in light of the empirical rule. In addition, if the Plaintiff’s assertion, it would be more simple to revise the accounting of △△△△△△△△△△△ regarding the receipt of KRW 80 million at the end of December 2009 as the Plaintiff, or to revise the Plaintiff’s accounting as △△△

If the above accounts were to coincide with the Plaintiff’s account books of △△△△△△△△ as the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s account books of the attached Table 1, which was about May 31, 2010, 80 million won (the difference between the Plaintiff’s account books) 3)

[3] The Plaintiff did not disclose how this part was dealt with on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not keep the data.

It was not possible to deal with the items irrelevant to the credit purchase debt of B [the short-term loan loan of 80 million won (the increase in assets)], and the representative director's debt decrease (the decrease in debts), etc. In such cases, the Plaintiff still exists 80 million won of credit purchase debt at △△△△△△△△ as of January 10, 201.

② If the Defendant’s assertion is, the details of accounting to be revised are as shown in attached Form 2. In that case, at the time of January 10, 201, the Plaintiff still has an amount of KRW 800 million to the △△△△△△△△△△△△△.

③ If the Plaintiff’s assertion is, the details of accounting to be revised are as shown in attached Form 3. In that case, the Plaintiff’s credit purchase obligation against △△△△△△△△△ as of January 10, 201 does not exist. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the payment of KRW 800 million at the end of December 2009 is true and is recorded in the Plaintiff’s account book, and the payment of KRW 900 million on May 31, 2010 is true and is recorded in the account book of △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion that only the part favorable to himself among the account books of the two companies is removed is not acceptable.

Rather, if the Plaintiff, at the end of December 2009, was to repay the credit purchase amount of KRW 800 million to △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, without a transfer transaction, it appears that △△△△△△△△△△△△ was in the situation where the short-term loan amount was excessive by the representative director at the time of December 2009. Unlike the assertion in the lawsuit in this case (the end of December 2009), the Plaintiff claimed that “△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ was in the process of collecting the short-term loan amount from the collected credit sales amount from September 2008 to September 20, 201.” However, △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△’s assertion that the above check was not consistent in consideration of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the amount was in close contact with the payer.

[4] This is highly likely to conceal the fact that the Plaintiff issued an amount equivalent to KRW 800,00,000 to Sick Disease around the end of December 2009, at the time of the Plaintiff’s request for a tax appeal, to Sick Disease alone;

The △△△△△△ in this case

Until the closing of argument, the accounting office shall be deemed to have received reimbursement of KRW 800 million for short-term loans of the representative director at the end of the end of the year.

5) If the Plaintiff did not correct the amount of credit purchase from the Plaintiff as the amount of credit purchase 5)

[5] See the reference document of January 27, 2015

In light of the above, it is difficult to view that the deposit withdrawn at the end of December 2009 by the Plaintiff was paid as the title of credit purchase debt of △△△△△△△△.

C. Sub-committee

With respect to the legitimate corporate tax amount to be paid by the Plaintiff for each business year from 2008 to 2011

3,233,584,127 won and due to the transfer of the processed sales bonds of this case

If 3,061,298 won of debt exemption is excluded from the inclusion in the gross income, the amount in the column of “justifiable tax amount” in attached Form 4.

Since it is a legitimate tax amount for each business year, corporate tax for the business year 2008 of the disposition of this case.

440,514,610 won of corporate tax for the business year 2009; 607,204,680 won of corporate tax for the business year; 10,867,540 won of corporate tax for the business year 2010; 3,527,150 won of corporate tax for the business year 2010; and 418,392,90 won of corporate tax for the business year 529,54,470 (including additional tax); and the part (including additional tax) exceeding 418,392,90 won of corporate tax for the business year 201 must be revoked

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition and is accepted and remaining claims.

The judgment of the court of first instance, which has partially different conclusions, is unfair, so the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair.

It is so changed as per Disposition and the remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.