Until the lawsuit for damages is finalized, the plaintiff corporation maintains its status as a member.

It is reasonable to view that the case was.

④ The Plaintiff’s dismissal of the Intervenor’s representative, closure of the Seocho Branch Office, and operation of the Intervenor’s personal office.

Accordingly, the resignation of the case that the intervenor has accepted and submitted a letter of delegation of lawsuit under the name of the plaintiff

Although the claim for damages of this case was submitted, the only one party to the lawsuit of this case is a written consent to resignation.

As it is inevitable to receive the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall be appointed as the attorney, and the intervenor shall be a sub-agent of the plaintiff

Inasmuch as the instant fee, etc. was reverted to an intervenor, the instant fee, etc. was reverted to the intervenor.

Although the court of first instance asserts that it should be viewed as the ground for appeal, the intervenor is different from the plaintiff's assertion.

The plaintiff's sub-agent that proceeded with the case as a sub-agent is a written consent to resignation from many parties.

There is concern that the intervenor does not pay the judgment money to the parties, not because it is difficult to receive it.

In view of the testimony to the purport that “C,” the Plaintiff won the instant damages claim lawsuit.

(1) The compensation for damages and the costs of the lawsuit shall first be vested in him/her, and among them, the fees of the case

Since it appears that the Plaintiff intended to pay to the intervenors, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is difficult to accept.

Even if the plaintiff's above assertion is acknowledged, this case until a final and conclusive judgment is rendered.

The status of attorney in the damages claim lawsuit was maintained, and the damages order payment in judgment was ordered.

Do As long as the Plaintiff received, the transaction or income realized in the name of the Plaintiff solely based on the aforementioned circumstances.

shall not be deemed to have been reverted to an intervenor in quality.

2) Judgment on the second argument

A) The instant fees, etc. in return for litigation services rendered by the Plaintiff under his/her name

at the stage of receipt, the Plaintiff’s income is promulgated as the basis for the taxation of the corporate tax; and

Then, the Plaintiff’s payment of the instant fees, etc. to the intervenors as bonus disposition against the Intervenor

Considering that it is the basis of taxation of income tax differs from the taxation stage or object, so both are adopted.

There is no illegality in imposing together.

B) In this case, the Plaintiff’s payment of the instant fee, etc. to the Intervenor at the time of reporting the corporate tax

section 43(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act by reporting that it has been included in deductible expenses.

in this case, however, at the time of filing a return of the corporate tax of this case, the plaintiff

It seems that no fee, etc. shall be included in the amount of income, but shall not be included in the loss.

C. In addition, the instant fees, etc. shall be the Plaintiff’s attorney-at-law who is a member attorney.

The profit-making sources to an officer under Article 43 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act who paid all kinds of piece rates;

bonus paid by portion or the articles of incorporation, general meeting of shareholders, general meeting of members, or

payments to officers without subject to the standards for payment of benefits decided by a resolution of the society;

'Redemy' (the plaintiff set the criteria for the payment of benefits to the members, including the intervenor).

There may be no evidence to acknowledge that it cannot be included in deductible expenses under the Corporate Tax Act.

Do.

Ultimately, the instant fees, etc. are not deducted from the Plaintiff’s income due to such non-deductible expenses.

The corporate tax is imposed at the income stage of the corporation with respect to the case fees, etc.

this money is only imposed on the participant's earned income tax at the stage of payment as bonus.

Therefore, it can not be considered as double taxation or abuse of taxation right.

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the different premise is without merit.

3) Judgment on the third argument

A) The contents of evidence No. 21, the testimony of a witness at the first instance trial and the purport of the whole pleadings

between 2006 and 2009, the stamp for the claim for damages of this case

It is recognized that 203,972,200 won was paid, and as seen earlier, the hand of this case is as follows.

The remuneration for the services provided by the intervenor in respect of the lawsuit for compensation for damage shall revert to the plaintiff's profits.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the above costs of stamp are also borne by the Plaintiff.

(c)

B) However, the tax base and tax amount on corporate income by the tax authorities under the field investigation method

If the income amount omitted in the initial return of the corporation concerned is found in determining the tax amount, it shall be found.

Unless there is evidence that there was a separate disbursement of the corresponding cost, the total amount of the revenue shall be the income.

of the expenses to be added and to be incurred in relation to the omitted income, the expenses

A taxpayer who seeks to include expenses in deductible expenses must voluntarily assert and prove (Supreme Court Decision 2003.

11. Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2673 Decided April 28, 201; Supreme Court Decision 2010Du28076 Decided April 28, 201; 201

The Court does not have any argument or proof as to this, and rather does so, each of the above evidence and arguments.

According to the purport of the whole, the above expenses are already calculated as corporate tax in 2006 to 2009.

(2) the insured depository institution is deemed to have been included in the deductible expenses, even if they were not included in the deductible expenses at the time.

The Do deductible expenses shall be attributed to the business year in which the relevant expenses are determined.

Article 40(1) of the Act) The deductible expenses for the expenses of the stamp, etc. paid by the Plaintiff are disbursed as expenses.

Since it should be reverted to the business year from 2006 to 2009, any of the expenses shall be 2010

It shall not be included in deductible expenses excluded from income for the year 201 and the year 201.

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the conclusion of the judgment of the first instance court dismissing the plaintiff's claim is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is justified

Therefore, it is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

2. The part concerning participation in the appeal costs shall be borne by the Intervenor, and the remainder shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

32,858,120 won, value-added tax 19,50,160 won, corporate tax 1,000,300,270 won, 201;

Each imposition of value-added tax of KRW 501,717,980 for one year 201 shall be revoked.

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the second to fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, the meaning of the language used in this part is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance (the second to third part) under Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter the meaning of the language used in this part is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance).

B. The instant lawsuit for damages became final and conclusive on December 29, 2010 (the lawsuit related to the original airfield), and on January 20, 2011 (the lawsuit related to the Lao airfield), and accordingly, the Republic of Korea deposited 18,071,454,120 won in the instant lawsuit for damages and total litigation costs under the instant lawsuit for damages over 15 times from March 11, 201 to July 6, 2012 (the compensation related to the original airfield + KRW 624,484,810 + KRW 17,168,70,560 + KRW 30,681,430 related litigation costs related to the original airfield as the litigation costs under the name of the Plaintiff in the overseas bank in the name of the Plaintiff.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Although the lawsuit of this case was filed in the name of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was the representative attorney of the plaintiff, in substance, the intervenor, who was operating the Seocho Branch Office as a representative attorney of the plaintiff, has independently accepted the lawsuit of this case, and the plaintiff has been continuously continuing the lawsuit in the form of sub-agent even after the plaintiff was dismissed from the plaintiff's representative and operated by opening a separate individual office, and since the fees, etc. of this case paid by the intervenor as a result of the judgment of the lawsuit became final and conclusive, it is in accordance with the principle of substantial taxation to deem that the fees, etc. of this case were reverted to the intervenor who is not the plaintiff and the intervenor.

2) On May 1, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the change in the amount of income that the amount equivalent to the instant fee, etc. was attributed to the intervenors as bonus, and accordingly imposed a labor income tax on the Plaintiff. The Defendant deemed the instant fee, etc. as bonus disposition against the Intervenor and imposed a labor income tax on the Intervenor, and it again deemed the Plaintiff’s income and imposed a corporate tax, etc. on the Plaintiff’s income constitutes a double taxation of one fee, and even if it is not double taxation, it constitutes an abuse of the right to impose

3) Although the Intervenor paid KRW 203,972,200 as stamp fees, delivery fees, appraisal fees, etc. while filing a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages in this case, the Defendant did not include the above amount in deductible expenses in calculating the corporate tax base. Therefore, each disposition imposing corporate tax in this case is unlawful in this regard.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. The court's explanation about this part of the facts of recognition is that " September 3, 2002" of No. 4, No. 13 of the first instance court's decision is dismissed as " September 13, 2002", and the fourth through No. 20, No. 5 of the fourth through No. 5 of the court's decision is as follows. "At the fifth, the witness's testimony and witness's testimony of the first instance court's Lee Jong-chul" shall be read as "each witness's testimony and witness's own testimony of the first instance court", and the second and second evidence No. 20 and No. 24 of the court's decision shall be added as the corresponding part (No. 4, No. 13 to No. 5 of the fourth through No. 5 of the court's decision). Thus, the court's decision shall be accepted 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 (hereinafter the judgment and its meaning).

“3) The Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor from the Plaintiff’s representative on June 28, 2010, and the Seocho Branch Office was closed on July 31, 2010, and the Intervenor opened an individual law office around August 2010. The Intervenor resigned from the Plaintiff on March 28, 201 and registered on April 12, 201.

D. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the instant fee, etc. belongs to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

① Article 52(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act prohibits a partner of a law firm from performing his/her attorney-at-law's practice in his/her own account or on the account of a third party.

② As seen in the above facts, even if each office has been operated by the so-called separate accounting method, such as the Plaintiff’s internal acceptance of cases and the employment of employees, it is merely an agreement with respect to the distribution of economic benefits arising from the attorney-at-law’s practice handled by the attorneys-at-law, and the right to a litigation delegation contract, etc. cannot be deemed to belong to the members of the law, and thus, it is in principle deemed that the fees for services provided by a member attorney-at-law of the law firm belong to the law firm as the revenue of the law firm. In this case, there is no special circumstance to deem that the Plaintiff is only the title holder of the transaction, such as the Intervenor

③ On June 28, 2010, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor from the Plaintiff’s representative; the Seocho Branch Office was closed on July 31, 2010; and even if the Intervenor opened and operated an individual office from around August 2010, the Intervenor retired from the Plaintiff’s legal entity on March 28, 2011, and thus, the Intervenor removed from the Plaintiff’s legal entity.

Judges Wang*

Judges Song*

Attorney-at-Law

Article 52 (Restrictions on Services of Partners, etc.)

(1) Partners and associate attorneys-at-law who are not partners of a law firm shall serve as an attorney-at-law for their own account

subsection (1) of this section.

Terms and Conditions of Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 14 (Real Taxation)

① 과세의 대상이 되는 소득, 수익, 재산, 행위 또는 거래의 귀속이 명의(����)일 뿐이고 사실

If there is another person to whom such other person belongs, the person to whom such other person actually belongs is liable for tax payment and applied tax law.

(c)

ii) Corporate Tax Act

Article 19 (Scope of Losses)

(1) Deductible expenses shall be excluded from refund of capital or financing, disposition of surplus funds, and those provided for in this Act.

법인의 순자산을 감소시키는 거래로 인하여 발생하는 손비(����)의 금액으로 한다.

(2) Losses under paragraph (1) shall be deductible expenses, except those otherwise prescribed by this Act and other Acts.

generally accepted as losses or expenses incurred in connection with the business of

or directly related to profit.

(4) Matters necessary for the scope and types of losses under the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (3).

Colonel shall be prescribed by Cabinet.

Article 40 (Business Year of Profit and Loss)

(1) The fiscal year of accrual of earnings and losses of a domestic corporation shall be the date on which the concerned earnings and losses are settled.

the business year to which it belongs.

Article 67 (Disposal of Income)

Report on the tax base of corporate tax on income for each business year under Article 60 or Article 66 or

When the corporate tax base is determined or corrected pursuant to Article 69, the amount included in the calculation of earnings shall be the person to whom the corporate tax belongs.

게 상여(����)・배당・기타사외유출(������������)・사내유보(��������) 등 대통령령으로 정하는

disposition shall be taken as such.

- 10 -

Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

Article 43 (Non-Inclusion of Bonuses in Calculation of Losses)

(1) Bonuses paid by a corporation to its officers or employees in the disposition of profits (the provisions of each subparagraph of Article 20 (1)).

1. Bonuses corresponding to the rate rates shall not be included in the calculation of losses. In this case, an unlimited partnership company or an unlimited partnership company shall not be included

Remuneration paid to members who invest through work and labor in a limited partnership company shall be considered as bonuses from the disposal of profits.

(2) Bonuses paid by a corporation to executives by the articles of incorporation, general meeting of shareholders, general meeting of partners or board of directors.

In cases where payments are made in excess of the amount determined in accordance with the standards for payment of benefits, such excess amount

shall not be counted in gold. Finally