A. On January 28, 2014, the Defendant’s imposition of corporate tax on the Plaintiff for the year 2011, exceeding KRW 00,000,000, and the imposition of KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

On January 28, 2014, the Defendant revoked the imposition of the corporate tax of 2011 on the Plaintiff, and the imposition of the corporate tax of 2011 on the corporate tax of 2012 exceeding 00 won shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows. On January 28, 2014, the part exceeding the ○○○○○ from among the disposition of imposition of corporate tax on the Plaintiff on January 28, 2011 and the disposition of imposition of corporate tax on the ○○○○○○○○ on the business year 2012, which exceeds the ○○○○○○○○.

The reasoning for the judgment of the court in this case is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following parts, and therefore, 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 (the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the purchase cost of computer, the purchase cost of solar tables, the purchase price of corporate card, the security deposit for corporate card, and the embezzlement (from April 1 to 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance, up to 14 pages).)

2. Parts to be dried;

○ Written judgment of the first instance court shall be conducted from 8th to 9th by cutting up to 3rd under the following:

2) Determination as to the claim of the second instructor fee in this case

A) Facts of recognition

① In establishing the Plaintiff, BB, CCC, and DD (hereinafter referred to as “DD”) agreed to bring 80% of their lecture fees out of their lecture fees as tuition fees. Meanwhile, the date of payment of the Plaintiff’s tuition fees is the 10th day of the following month following the lecture.

② DD was demoted at the Plaintiff’s private teaching institute from November 23, 2011 to January 27, 2012.

③ From the new bank account of CCC on December 13, 201, ○○○○○ on December 15, 2011, 2011, ○○○○○○○○ on January 12, 2012, ○○○○○○○○ on February 3, 2012, and ○○○○○○ on February 3, 2012, respectively, was transferred from the City Bank account of CCC to the City Bank account of CCC on February 3, 2012.

④ On January 1, 2012, CCC paid cash ○○○○○○ and cash ○○○○ around February 3, 2012 to DD respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 13 through 16, 29 evidence, Eul 5 evidence (including branch numbers), witness testimony of the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Determination

(1) Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned facts and the following circumstances revealed from the evidence, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s assertion on the part of the Plaintiff’s tuition fees paid on or around January 1, 201, including ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was transferred on December 15, 201 to DD on or before December 13, 201, ○○○○○○○○○, which was paid on or around January 12, 2012, out of the reported amount of business income and the amount of credit transfer, was already recognized as deductible expenses on December 13, 201 and December 15, 2011.

① DD agreed to bring an amount equivalent to 80% of its tuition fees on the principal’s lecture as an instructor fee. Each of the above amounts is an amount within 80% of the total amount of tuition fees of a lecture that DD performed in November and December 2011 (○○○○○○, December 201), and the payment period is adjacent to the tenth day of the following month following the lecture.

② The new bank account of the CCC is the Plaintiff’s borrowed name account that received tuition fees.

③ Upon requesting the Defendant to conduct a tax investigation, the chief prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office provided the following materials: (a) suspected of omitting tuition fees [the details of withdrawal from the accounts of the new bank account CCC (No. 5-2), and the details of cash withdrawal from tuition fees (No. 2011, No. 2012) (No. 5-3)]; and (b) confirmed the omission of tuition fees by using them as basic materials, and confirmed the omission of tuition fees by the Defendant. The above materials are highly reliable in light of the contents of the records. The cash stated in No. 5-3 is the tuition fees received from all students; (c) the above materials are written as being withdrawn from DD on January 1, 2012; and (d) the said materials are written as being stated as being withdrawn from BB and CCC on the same date; and (d) the amount of withdrawal is also divided into the above tuition fees for a lump sum amount corresponding to the amount calculated in December 201.

④ Since DD was demoted and withdrawn from office until January 2012, it seems that there is no possibility that this portion of DD could be mixed with investment funds for Benmanism in addition to tuition fees.

(2) In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s tuition fees paid to DD should be additionally included in deductible expenses in the year 2012, but it cannot be concluded that the above amount was paid as tuition fees for the following reasons. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① The details of the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and paid in cash from the CCC’s account on February 3, 2012. However, in a lawsuit claiming restitution of unjust enrichment filed by DDR against AA and CCC (Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap○○○), AA and CCC asserted that the said amount was paid to DD on February 3, 2012, with the payment of tuition fees and the payment for the waiver of equity interest, etc., while the said court rendered a ruling on November 27, 2014, it can be deemed that DD agreed that the said court would waives the Plaintiff’s equity interest in receiving money from AA and CCC on February 3, 2012 (Evidence evidence 29).

② At the investigative agency stated that “DD was not paid in cash from the Plaintiff” (Evidence No. 9), and at the court of first instance, DD testified to the effect that the amount received from the Plaintiff includes the settlement amount or cost of the investment (it is alleged that most of DD testified that it is appropriate that DD was paid as an instructor fee, but the purport of DD’s statement is not a pure lecture fee that is excluded from the nature of investment.)

③ The above amount exceeds 80% of the tuition fees received from lectures that DDR performed in January 2012.

④ Comprehensively taking account of the foregoing circumstances, it is reasonable to view that DD received ○○○○○○ won by settling accounts between AA and CCC on February 3, 2012, including not only the tuition fees paid on January 2012, but also the shares of the Plaintiff, while withdrawing from the Plaintiff’s private teaching institute. Of them, there is no evidence to find out the amount equivalent to the tuition fees.

○ Written judgment of the first instance court shall be conducted from 14th to 2th, as follows:

4) Sub-committee

A) In a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a taxation disposition, the subject matter of adjudication is whether the tax base and tax amount notified by the tax authority exist objectively. In a case where the tax base and tax amount recognized by the disposition are excessive compared to the legitimate tax base and tax amount, the disposition of imposition is unlawful only to the extent exceeding the reasonable tax base and tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6504, Mar. 28, 198

B) As to the corporate tax for the business year 2011, the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding this part of the Plaintiff’s fee is reasonable. As such, the Defendant’s non-deductible part in the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year 2011 ought to be denied within the aforementioned scope. Accordingly, the legitimate tax amount is ○○○, such as [Attachment 2] “the details of calculating the legitimate tax amount for the business year 2011.” Therefore, the portion exceeding KRW ○○ out of the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year 2011 should be revoked as it is unlawful

C) Since the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the corporate tax for the business year 2012 is with merit, the part that the Defendant excluded from deductible expenses while imposing corporate tax for the business year 2012 should be denied within the aforementioned scope. Accordingly, the legitimate tax amount is ○○○○ as shown in [Attachment 3] 2012, such as “the details of calculation of the legitimate tax amount for the business year 2012.” Therefore, the portion exceeding ○○○○ out of the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year 2012 should be revoked as it is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with a different conclusion, only the plaintiff's appeal shall be accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as above.