2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff issued a foreign currency bond outside of Korea to a domestic corporation established for the purpose of developing electric resources, etc., and thereafter paid KRW 15,709,921,875 to a foreign corporation which is a bondholder (hereinafter “instant interest”) as interest in the business year 2010 and KRW 23,759,859,375 in the business year 2011.

B. The Plaintiff did not submit a payment record pursuant to Article 120-2 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the ground that the instant interest constitutes domestic source income exempt from corporate tax pursuant to Article 21(1)1 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11133, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 120-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22577, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 120-2 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25194, Apr. 21, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply).

다. 그러나 피고는 이 사건 지급이자의 경우 구 조세특례제한법에 따라 비과세면제신청서를 제출하지 아니하는 경우에 해당하여 지급명세서 제출이 면제되는 대상에 해당하지 않는다는 이유로 2013. 8. 8. 원고에 대하여 2010 사업연도 법인세 100,000,000원(지급명세서 미제출 가산세), 2011 사업연도 법인세 100,000,000원(지급명세서 미제출 가산세)을 각 경정고지(이하 ‘이 사건 처분’이라 한다)하였다. 라.

On October 14, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on February 18, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is one of the Enforcement Decree of the former Corporate Tax Act.