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

A. The Plaintiff is a major corporation that has more than 10 affiliated companies and is engaged in real estate development and construction business (hereinafter referred to as “ XX group by combining both the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s affiliated companies”).

B. The director of Seoul Regional Tax Office, around 2007, conducted an integrated corporate tax investigation of the XX Group at 205, ① The management planning office (the name was changed from September 1, 2005 to the Restructuring Headquarters) belonging to the Plaintiff within 2002 to 2005, ④ the total amount of KRW 5,022,349,00 (hereinafter referred to as "the expense of this case") shall be deemed to be all of the expenses of the Plaintiff Company, and the amount of KRW 3,376,761,000 (the total amount of KRW 428,519,000,000, KRW 310,000 for the business year 20, KRW 205, KRW 200 for the business year from September 1, 2005, KRW 300 for the business year from 30,000, KRW 200 for the business year from 310,000 for the business year from 205,305.

C. Based on the above taxation data, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the change in the amount of income which includes the following: (a) the amount of income which was disposed of as a result of the recognition of the above provisional payment, including the amount equivalent to the above provisional payment, for each business year belonging to each of the above business years on March 28, 2008 (2,065,816,989 won for the year 2003; (b) the amount belonging to 1,498,80,994 won for the year 2004; (c) the amount belonging to 701,001,993 won for the year 2005; and (d) the amount of corporate tax for the business year 203,745,305,110 won for the year 203, corporate tax for the business year 1,531,954, corporate tax for the year 204, corporate tax for 1,405,6364

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with each of the above dispositions and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 26, 2008, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on December 10, 2010.

E. Since then, on March 14, 2011, the Defendant revised the disposition of imposition of each of the above corporate tax on March 14, 2011, as seen below.

F. On the other hand, among the notice of the disposition imposing corporate tax and the notice of the change in the amount of income of each of the above dispositions, the plaintiff only dispute the amount of disposition and the notice related to the correction of the case (hereinafter the above disposition related to the correction of the case among each of the above dispositions remaining after the correction of reduction, and the notice related to the correction of the case among the notice of the change in the amount of income of each of the above dispositions, "the disposition of this case" is added. The detailed contents

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition shall be revoked on the grounds that there are unlawful grounds as seen below.

1) The management planning office affiliated with the Plaintiff company is an organization operated independently by the Plaintiff to perform the Plaintiff’s inherent business, and its nature is completely different from the group management office that performs the function of coordinating and controlling the overall management of the group. Therefore, the instant expenses incurred in the management office cannot be deemed as the common expenses of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s affiliated companies.

2) The instant funds that the Plaintiff lent to the 0A, the representative director of the Plaintiff, were funds to acquire the shares of the Ocomputer Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “OO”) through the 0A. At the time, the OO’s acquisition of shares was not due to the interest or necessity of the 0A, but inevitable choice on the Plaintiff’s business strategy, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the said lending was unrelated to business. In light of the situation of the Plaintiff’s existence at the time, it is a transaction with economic rationality. Thus, the instant funds cannot be deemed as a provisional payment by a business office, which is subject to unfair calculation.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Details, etc. of the organization of the Plaintiff Company

A) The Plaintiff has maintained 17 companies in 2001, 15 companies in 2002, 14 companies in 2003, 18 companies in 2004, and 20 companies in 205 to diversify the category of business as a company engaged in real estate development and construction business.

B) While the organization of the Plaintiff Company is divided into each headquarters, such as the business headquarters, the construction headquarters, and the management headquarters, it had a separate management planning office under the direct control of the president, the said management planning office was changed on September 1, 2005.

C) The detailed organization status of the management planning office or restructuring co-ordination centre from 2002 to 2005 is as follows:

(ii) Details of the distribution of expenses required by the management planning office or the rescue coordination headquarters;

A) From 2002 to 2007, the particulars of expenses required by the management planning office or restructuring coordination headquarters are as follows:

B) The Plaintiff, while operating the management planning office, handled all the expenses incurred by the Plaintiff company at its expense, distributed the expenses incurred in relation to the company including the Plaintiff based on the ordinary profits in the business plan in 2005 when the name of the restructuring headquarters was changed in 2005. Since 2006, the expenses incurred in the restructuring planning office are distributed to five affiliated companies, including the Plaintiff.

3) Data submitted by the Plaintiff in the course of the tax investigation

The plaintiff submitted the following data in the course of the tax investigation, and the detailed details are as follows:

4) The loan and collection process, etc. of the instant money

A) The 00,000 won, which was the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, offered as security 33% of the △△△△△D shares and 15% of the shares of △com Co., Ltd. owned by the Plaintiff Company, and borrowed 5,360,000,000 of the instant money from February 25, 2003 to July 23, 2003, the 00,000 shares were acquired on March 19, 2003 by using it, and 1.5 million shares were additionally acquired by participating in the capital increase with an OO’s capital increase on July 29, 2003. < Amended by Act No. 6913, Jul. 29, 2003>

B) On July 31, 2003, immediately after the acquisition of O's 6.5 million shares, 00,000 shares of the company of the Plaintiff prepared and delivered a letter (Evidence A No. 11) to the effect that "the company of the Plaintiff will provide the O's shares at any time until repayment of the amount is made."

C) On September 26, 2005, immediately after the expiration of the two-year safeguard period, the 00,000 US shares held by the Plaintiff Company, sold 6.5 million US shares at KRW 5,579,50,000 on the same day, and repaid the Plaintiff in full the amount corresponding to the instant amount.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 11, 15, 24 through 27, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 7 and 9 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) As to the assertion that the instant expenses cannot be deemed joint expenses

In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view the instant expense spent by the Plaintiff Company in the course of operating the management planning office as the common expense of the XX Group. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

A) First of all, according to the content of the data submitted by the Plaintiff in the course of the tax investigation, the management planning office or restructuring coordination headquarters, which was operated by the Plaintiff company, is presumed to have been performing the duties of coordinating and supporting the duties of affiliated companies in XX group. [The management planning office in charge of group support affairs (2002-2005) is organized and operated in the Plaintiff company from 2002 to 2004, and its name has been changed from September 2005 to 2004, and the expenses of the department in charge of group support affairs have been fully borne by the Plaintiff company. The management planning office in charge of group support affairs has been independently borne by the Plaintiff company during the period of 2004, stating that the data on the business management performance of the 2006 team were related to the support of the team, and it is related to a large number of affiliated companies (206.06.06.06.06.06.06.06.06.06.06.0.0.06.0.0.06.

B) In addition, the Plaintiff has been engaged in real estate development and construction business, but there have been more than 10 related companies in various types of business, so it seems that the group support department, which performs duties such as coordinating and managing the duties of affiliated companies in XX group, seems to have been essential. As such, the management planning office or restructuring coordination headquarters, which appears to be the group support department, has been organized and operated separately, unlike other departments in the Plaintiff company, under the direct control of the president of the Plaintiff company.

C) In addition, the Plaintiff handled all the expenses incurred in operating the management planning office at the cost of the Plaintiff Company. However, after the change of the name to the restructuring headquarters, the expenses incurred by the restructuring headquarters have been allocated to the affiliated companies in XX group based on sales, etc. on the basis of the nature of the common expenses of the XX group.

D) On the other hand, the Plaintiff alleged that the management planning office was performing group support affairs only after the change into the management planning office on September 1, 2005, and the nature of the business management planning office's business cannot be determined as group support office based on the materials since 2006. However, as the management planning office's name changed from the management planning office to the management planning office's name, there seems to be no specific difference between the organization and the current status of the organization. (2) In light of the above increase in the management planning office's business management team's business management team's business management team's business management team's business management team, non-business management team, personnel planning team, total tax office's team, and non-resident's business management headquarters's business management office's business management planning office's business management planning office's business management planning office's business management planning office's business management planning office's business management promotion office's business management planning office's business affairs' 200 times increase of 10 times the expenses for the above management planning office's business management planning office's business's 20.

2) As to the assertion that the instant money cannot be viewed as a provisional payment without office

A) Article 28(1)4(b) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8141 of Dec. 30, 2006) provides that where a corporation acquires or holds assets prescribed by the Presidential Decree such as provisional payments paid to a person with a special relationship without connection with its business, etc., an amount calculated as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (limited to interest on loans equivalent to the asset value) from among the interest on loans paid by the corporation shall not be included in deductible expenses in calculating the income amount for each business year. The legislative purpose of the above provision is not to include the amount calculated as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (limited to interest on loans) in deductible expenses in calculating the income amount for each business year. The legislative purpose of the above provision is to provide that where a corporation holding loans has paid provisional payments, etc. to a person with a special relationship without connection with its business, it shall not be included in deductible expenses due to any disadvantage in taxation that prevents the deterioration of its financial structure through the expansion of enterprises dependent on other's capital and induce the sound economic activities of the corporation through the production of corporate funds.

See, etc.)

B) In light of the above legal principles, the health team and the facts acknowledged earlier on the instant case

Considering the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff was a corporation that has been engaged in real estate development and construction business, and (ii) the Plaintiff’s representative director at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of shares under the name of O, a software management company that has no relationship with the Plaintiff’s own business or business, and (iii) the Plaintiff was ultimately unable to deem that the lending was objectively related to the Plaintiff’s own business, and (iv) the Plaintiff was provided with shares from 0A as collateral while lending the instant shares to 00,000 won to 19,50,000 won for the Plaintiff’s audit report, and the Plaintiff was also entitled to 00,000,000 won for 0,000 won for 0,000 won for 0,000 won for 0,000,000 won for 0,000 won for 0,000,000 won for 0,000 won for 0,000 won for AO’s own shares.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.