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

A. A. Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2008

2. Determination

A. As to the allegation of illegality in the inclusion of the proceeds of processing sales in the gross income in the instant case, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where the following is added at the end of paragraph (1) of the same Article.

In other words, if the processing sales and processing expenses are appropriated simultaneously, the increase of the gross income as the processing sales increases, while the processing expenses increase as the deductible expenses, the whole does not affect the tax base of the corporate tax.

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

In this respect, if there are both processing sales and processing expenses, the fact that a considerable amount of processing sales belongs to the Plaintiff and increases the Plaintiff’s net profit should be proved by the Defendant’s specific circumstances, and this is not limited to cases where the processing sales are appropriated and the amount of the processing expenses is immediately appropriated.

B. 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 burden of proving the illegality of the transfer of the processed sales claim in the calculation of earnings from the discharge of liabilities is exempted or extinguished.