2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 3/4 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Preliminary claim: the Defendant revoked all the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 000 as of the end of August 14, 2005 against the Plaintiff on the end of August 2003 and corporate tax of KRW 000 as of the end of August 2, 2006 on the end of March 2, 2006 (including penalty tax as to each of the above amounts of the claim on the record) (The claim in the preliminary claim of the Plaintiff is also subject to revocation of the remaining disposition of imposition, excluding the imposition of corporate tax of KRW 00 for the business year as of March 2, 2006 as of August 2, 2003 among the above primary claims, the Plaintiff also sought revocation of the disposition of imposition, excluding the imposition of corporate tax of KRW 00 for the Plaintiff as of August 2, 2006, because this does not have a primary and conjunctive relationship with the same claim, this part of the claim

(a) Status of parties;

(1) Article XXIII established the U.S. R III R III, L.P., and L.P. in the Luxembourg, and each of the above corporations established the U.S.O. Ⅲ, S.ar.L. In accordance with the Asset-Backed Securitization Act on June 30, 2001, each of the above corporations established the Plaintiff, a limited company specializing in asset-backed securitization, in accordance with the Asset-Backed Securitization Act.

(2) Y Korea Co., Ltd (Y Korea, Ltd., hereinafter referred to as “YY”) is an asset management company specialized in asset management, and upon entering into an entrustment contract with the Plaintiff, as a trustee of the Plaintiff’s business as well as the manager of the Plaintiff’s business in charge of managing and operating the Plaintiff’s business, as prescribed by the Asset-Backed Securitization Act.

B. Operational process of XX

"(1) 투자대상 물색 및 투자자산 관리를 위하여 XX 운영자인 XX Partners, LP의 구성원인 NN G은 XX △△, LLC(이하 'XX△△'라 한다)와 YY, LLC(이하 '□□'이라 한다).를 설립하였고, 한국 내 투자대상 물색 및 투자자산 관리를 위하여 XX△△는 XX◇◇ 주식회사(이하 'XX◇◇'라 한다)를, □□은 YY를 각 설립하였으며, 지역책임자(country manager)라는 직함으로 이AA(이명 AA 리)을 파견하여 XX◇◇와 YY의 업무전반을 관장하도록 하였다.",(2) XX◇◇는 XX가 국내에 투자할 자산을 물색하는 Originatoin 업무를 수행하였는데, 해당 업무를 담당하는 임원들인 Originator들은 부실금융기관, 자신관리공사 등 부실채권 보유자로부터 자산매각을 위탁받은 주관사가 제안한 투자의향을 받아 이를 검토하거나 낙찰받을 자산을 물색한 후 Roll-Up Meeting을 개최하여 투자 여부를 심의한 후 미국 XX 본사 투자위원회에 보고하여 본사에서 투자하기로 결정하면 경매를 통해 당해 자산을 낙찰받았고, 이에 부수하여 YY의 거래종결팀(Underwriting) 소속으로 편제되어 있는 Closing팀을 활용하여 Originator들이 낙찰받아 온 부실자산을 자산보유자로부터 양수하기 위하여 자산유동화회사(SPC)를 설립하였으며, 자산유동화증권을 발생하여 조달한 자금을 자산보유자에게 지급함으로써 양수한 자산을 YY의 자산관리팀(Asset Management)에 넘기는 역할을 담당하였다.

"Y.3) In the course of performing asset management work for assets invested in XX in Korea, Y established four organizations, such as asset management teams, real estate appraisal teams, transaction closing teams, and financial management teams. When the assets in question are transferred to the asset management team, Porfolilililigateer manages and collects the assets by PC to the As set setererer, and the set seter team collects and collects the amount of recovery and recovery from the assets managed at least once a month. On the other hand, Y prepared an asset management task to the asset management team’s return rate from the asset management team to the person in charge of forecast the return of the asset management team, and prepared an asset management task to the officer in charge of the asset management, as the basis of the "Casfioliligleer" and the "Assumer’s return rate from the end of each month."

(1) As to the transfer of K Bonds

(A) Around August 24, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired the credit from DDR Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “DD”), and sold the above obligation to Nonparty WW Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “W”) for KRW 000 on August 27, 2001, and WW sold the above obligation to Nonparty WW Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “W”). Around August 30, 2001, W sold the above obligation to SS consulting (hereinafter “SS”).

"(나) 한편 XX◇◇는 BB중공업 주식회사에 000불(한화 약 000원 상당)을 위 회사 소유의 RR제물포 빌딩을 담보로 대출하여 준 다음, 2001. 1. 23.경 위 대출금 채권(이하 'BB 채권'이라 한다)을 XX PP 리미티드(XX PP, Ltd., 이하 'XXPP'라 한다)에 매도하였는데, XXPP는 2001. 1.경 BB중공업 주식회사의 부도로 000원 상당의 손실이 예상되었다. XXPP는 2001. 8. 2.경 WW에게 위 BB채권을 000원에 매도하였다(당시 BB채권의 담보물인 RR제물포빌딩의 경매를 통하여 000원 상당만을 회수할 수 있는 상태였다).",(다) WW은 2001. 8. 30. SS로부터 KK채권에 대한 양도대금 000원을 WW 명의의 금융계좌(제일은행)로 송금받은 다음, 다음날인 2001. 8. 31.경 원고에게 000원을 지급하고, 잔액인 000원 상당을 위 계좌에 보관하다가, XXPP에게 BB채권 매입대금 명목으로 2001. 9. 12. 위 000원과 자신의 자금인 000원을 합한 000원을, 2001. 12. 5. 000원을 각 지급하였다.

(2) As to the transfer of MM bonds

(A) LLK K K K Kcom Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "CC") established around August 2000 around the third business year (from January 1, 2002 to October 23, 2002) with low rent rate of 4.07%, since the third business year (from January 1, 2002 to October 23, 2002) with low rent rate of 1.07% increased.

(B) Around August 24, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired a claim against MM from DD with respect to the said company (hereinafter referred to as “MM claim”), and sold WW at KRW 000 on August 5, 2002, WW sold at KRW 000 in the same amount as the purchase price of the said MM claim toCC on August 7, 2002, andCC sold the said MM claim at KRW 000 on the same day to EE Capital (hereinafter referred to as “E”).

(C) Around September 25, 2002, EE received 000 won from the TT shopping consortium that acquired MM from the company, and paid 000 won after deducting 000 won from the name lending fee. On September 27, 2002,CC paid 00 won after deducting 000 won from the above amount. Since September 30, 2002, WW paid the same amount to the Plaintiff around October 2, 2002, the Plaintiff paid 00 won to W, and WW paid the same amount to W around October 16, 202, and WW paid the same amount toCC around that time.

(3) Regarding the assignment of GG claims

On May 6, 200, the issue was that the rate of return from early 200 to HH II and Ltd (hereinafter “HⅡ”) established by the GG Construction Bank Co., Ltd. with the LG Construction Co., Ltd. from May 6, 200 to HH II was low on two occasions. (B) On August 24, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired D’s claim against the GG Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “GG claim”) against the Plaintiff on a debt-equity swap from the GG Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and sold the remainder of the GG Construction Co., Ltd.’s debt-equity swap to the Plaintiff on 00 GG Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Y”) for the remainder of the debt-equity swap from the GG Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “FF’s debt-equity swap claim from the 3G Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd.) to the 200 GG Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Y”).

(4) As to the assignment of UU claims

(A) On May 31, 2002, AA Limited Liability Company (hereinafter referred to as the “AA”) is a company incorporated on May 31, 2002 with the GangnamJ and ZZ as a representative of the Y for the purpose of promptly disposing of the remaining assets of the SPC related to XX.

(B) On August 24, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired the claim against UU (hereinafter “U claim”) from DD with respect to UU (hereinafter “U claim”) and sold the above UU claim to A on August 7, 2003. AA borrowed KRW 000 from NU unemployment on the same day, and paid the Plaintiff a down payment under the above claim sales contract. On September 8, 2003, the Plaintiff received KRW 000 as a reorganization claim payment from UU (U) and paid the remainder to the Plaintiff.

D. Each taxation of this case

(6) As above, the Defendant: (a) calculated the Plaintiff’s tax amount of KRW 10,00 on 20,00,000 for 20,000 for 20,000,00 won for 20,00 won for 20,000 won for 30,00 won for 20,00 won for 20,00 won for 20,000 won for 20,00 won for 30,00 won for 20,00 won for 20,000 won for 30,00 won for 20,000 won for 20,00 won for 30,00 won for 20,00 won for 20,00 won for 30,00 won for 20,00 won for 20,00 won for 20,00 won for 20,00 won for 20,00 won for 20,00 won for 3

(e) appeal procedures;

On January 13, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a request with the National Tax Tribunal for the first or fifth disposition of this case on June 1, 2006. However, on January 11, 2008, the first and the second disposition of this case was dismissed. Meanwhile, the Defendant initially imposed a tax by applying the provision regarding the calculation of unfair act (Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act) by deeming that the Plaintiff is a person with a special relationship. However, on the premise that each of the above transactions between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff during the said adjudication is the most unfair act, and the actual sale price of each of the above claims constitutes gross income under Article 15 of the Corporate Tax Act, and subsequently changed the grounds for taxation by deeming that the actual sale price of each of the above claims constitutes the difference between the contract price under each of the above assignment contract and the contract price under each of the above transfer contracts.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Each disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) Each assignment of claims between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is effective in accordance with the agreement of the respective parties, and even if the Plaintiff suffered losses from each of the above transfers of claims, this means that the Plaintiff became the victim according to the Plaintiff’s breach of trust, which is the caretaker, and such circumstance does not affect the validity of each assignment of claims, and the Plaintiff did not actually have any such result as a special purpose company, in light of the following: (a) the validity of each assignment of claims is not affected by the Plaintiff’s act of breach of trust; and (b) the Plaintiff did not have any purpose of corporate tax reduction; and (c) the Plaintiff does not constitute a disguised act of each assignment of claims between the Plaintiff and the

(2) Even if the part of the assignment of claims between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, GATT, HII, and AA constituted a disguised act, this does not necessarily mean that the Plaintiff sells its assets at a low price and only acquires the transfer proceeds. In such a case, the taxpayer’s choice should be respected in the transaction composition. In such a case, insofar as the Defendant, who is the tax authority responsible for asserting and proving the basis and legality of the disposition, fails to present specific rules of denial of laws, such as the provision on wrongful calculation (Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 88(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act), and provision on donation agenda (Article 35 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act), the validity of the relevant transaction cannot be denied.

(3) Meanwhile, even if a claim for return of unjust enrichment or a claim for damages is created against the Plaintiff due to a Y’s misappropriation transaction in each of the instant assignment of claims, the occurrence of such claim itself cannot be deemed as mature and conclusive, and thus, it cannot be deemed as gross income under the Corporate Tax Act.

(4) Even if the Plaintiff’s transfer of GG bonds to HⅡ is deemed null and void as the act of pretending to be the act of debt repayment, the relevant taxable income accrued therefrom is a total of 000 won (=00 won +00 won) in the FF’s financial account for the repayment of the reorganization claim. Since the time of attribution cannot be deemed to be the Plaintiff’s business year at the end of February 23, 2003 (from December 1, 2002 to February 28, 2003). Likewise, the occurrence of taxable income related to UU credit is deemed to be after September 8, 2003, which was paid approximately 00 won by UUU from the date of debt repayment. Thus, the time of attribution cannot be deemed to be the Plaintiff’s business year at the end of August 2003 (from June 1, 2003 to February 203).

B. Whether the first disposition of this case is lawful

In light of the above facts and evidence of Gap 3, 4, 12, and 7-1, 2, and 4 of the plaintiff's Y2's Y2's Y2's Y2's Y2's Y1's Y2's Y2's Y2's Y2's 80's Y2's 2's 20's 2's 2's 2's 2's Y2's 2's 2's 2's 2's 2's 20's 2's 8's 2's Y2's 2's 2's 20's 2's 2's Y's 1's 2's 2's 3's Y's 2's 2's 20's 's 2''''s 2''''s 2''s 's 's 3's Y

In addition, insofar as the Plaintiff’s Y, the caretaker, holds the above 00 won until the end of the business year ( August 31, 2001) of August 2001, and does not deliver it to XXP, it is difficult to view that the above amount was leaked, and it is difficult to view that it was reverted to the Plaintiff’s profit for the business year of August 2001.

Therefore, in the same purport, the first disposition of this case, which the defendant added the above KRW 000 to the plaintiff's gross income for the end of August 2001, is lawful, and the plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

C. Whether the second disposition of this case is lawful

Considering the facts as seen earlier, YY’s overall purport of the arguments as indicated in Gap’s facts and evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 8-2 through 4, Y is the Plaintiff’s andCC’s caretaker, YY’s intent to illegally transfer Plaintiff’s profit toCC. Y sells MP’s claim to WW at low price, Y sells it at low price. W is the Plaintiff’s agent’s sale of the above MF’s claim to EE at normal price, and Y is the Plaintiff’s agent’s sale of the above MF’s claim to 0.3 billion won. In light of the above facts, Y is the Plaintiff’s act of selling Y to 200,000 won, excluding the Plaintiff’s claim reimbursement amount, YY’s deposit in the above 200,000,0000,0000,0000 won, excluding the above 20,000,000 won.

However, as of November 30, 2002, which was the end of the business year of November 2002, the plaintiff, as of November 30, 2002, the above 000 won belonged toCC other than the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff acquired the claim for damages equivalent to the same amount of damages or the claim for return of unjust enrichment againstCC as of the end of the business year of November 2002, and the above damage claim, etc. is deemed to have occurred as soon as the difference between the normal value and the acquisition value of the MM claim belongs to the mature and confirmed, and the income subject to taxation corresponding to the difference is deemed to have occurred (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Nu518, Jun. 26,

Therefore, in the same purport, the second disposition of this case, which the defendant included the above 000 won in the plaintiff's gross income for the end of November 2002, is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

D. Whether the third disposition of this case is lawful

In light of the Plaintiff’s facts and evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 8-4, Y2, Y2, Y2, Y2, Y2, Y2, Y2, Y2, Y3, 00, 000, 200,000 won and 0.3,000,000 won and 2,000,000 won and 2,000,000 won and 2,000,000 won and 2,000,000 won and 3,00,000,000 won and 2,00,000 won and 2,00,000 won and 2,00,00 won and 2,00,00 won and 3,00,00 won and 2,00,00 won and 2,00,00 won and 3,00,00 won and 2,03,00.

Therefore, the third disposition of this case is unlawful on the premise that the period of attribution of the above profits related to the GG bonds of this case falls under the end of February 2003, and the plaintiff's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

E. Whether the disposition of this case Nos. 5 and 6 is legitimate

살피건대, 앞서 본 사실 및 증거들에 을 제9호증의 기재, 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 사실에 나타난 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① AA은 XX와 관련된 SPC들의 잔존자산을 조속히 정리할 목적으로 위 NN실업과 마찬가지로 YY의 직원들을 대표로 하여 출자금 000원으로 설립한 회사인데, AA의 출자금이 000원에 불과할 뿐만 아니라 별다른 수익원이 없어 모든 자금운영이 YY의 지급보증에 따라 금융기관으로부터 조달한 돈으로 이루어졌던 점 등을 고려하면, YY가 AA의 사실상 자산관리자 지위에 있었다고 봄이 상당한 점, ② 소외 XX KKCompany Ⅱ, Ltd.가 조기청산을 위하여 AA에게 아산 콘크리트 공장을 매각하였는데, AA은 위 공장에 주식회사 SYC(QQ양회 주식회사를 퇴사한 직원들이 실립한 회사임)가 무단으로 입주하여 사용하는 등의 이유로 제3자에 대한 매각이 용이하지 아니하자 위 공장을 당초 취득가액보다 낮은 가액으로 주식회사 SYC에게 매각할 수 밖에 없었을 뿐만 아니라 그 과정에서 이자, 취득세 등의 많은 비용이 소요되었고, 위 건물과 관련한 국세청의 2003. 8. 4.경부터 2003. 8. 7.경까지 사이의 부가가치세 현지확인 조사 결과 약 000원의 부가가치세까지 부담하게 되는 등 자금사정이 악화되었던 점, ③ 그 결과 AA은 이 사건 UU채권의 양수계약일인 2003. 8. 7. 현재 약 000원의 자금이 추가로 필요한 상태에 있었는데, 위 금액은 AA이 원고와 사이에 이 사건 UU채권 양도 거래로 얻을 수익 000원과 거의 비슷한 점, ④ 정리회사 주식회사 UU에 대한 대구지방법원 94파183 회사정리사건에서 2003. 8. 13. 인가된 2003. 7. 25.자 정리계획 변경계획안의 내용과 위 계획안의 수립 및 인가결정 시기 등을 고려하면, 원고가 이 사건 UU채권을 AA에게 양도한 2003. 8. 7. 무렵에는 이 사건 UU채권의 회수가액을 어느 정도 예상할 수 있었다고 보이는데, 이에 대한 별다른 고려 없이 현저하게 낮은 매매가액으로 이루어진 원고와 AA 사이의 이 사건 UU채권의 양도거래는 오로지 AA에게 금전적 이익을 분여하여 AA을 지원할 목적으로 행하여진 것으로 볼 수 밖에 없는 점, ⑤ 원고의 자산관리자인 YY가 이 사건 GG채권을 유FF에게 형식상 매도할 때와 마찬가지로 이 사건 UU채권의 거래과정에 있어서도 당해 채권매매계약의 계약금을 NN실업으로부터 차용하는 등의 유사한 방식이 동원된 점 등에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 UU채권 매매계약은 원고의 자산관리자인 YY가 AA을 지원할 목적으로 원고 소유의 UU채권을 AA에게 매도하는 형식으로 체결한 것으로 봄이 상당하므로, 이는 통모에 의한 가장행위로서 무효이고, 사실상 AA의 자산관리자의 지위도 겸하고 있는 YY가 위와 같은 형식의 매매계약으로 000원을 AA에 불법적으로 이전하기로 한 행위는 원고의 대리인의 배임적 대리행위를 그 거래 상대방인 AA의 대리인이 알았던 경우에 해당할 뿐만 아니라 반사회적 법률행위이기도 하므로 무효이다.

However, after the plaintiff's end of August 2003 (from June 1, 2003 to August 31, 2003), the plaintiff received KRW 000 as a reorganization claim repayment from UUU and paid the remaining amount of KRW 000 to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff did not own the above KRW 00 until the end of the business year ( August 31, 2003) of August 2003. Thus, even if the above KRW 00 (the claim for the return of unjust enrichment corresponding to the inside amount, etc.) was reverted to the plaintiff's business year after the end of the business year ( August 31, 2003) of August 31, 200, it cannot be deemed that the profit accrued to the plaintiff for the business year after the end of the business year (the date of August 31, 2003).

Therefore, under the premise that the period of attribution of the above revenue related to UU claim of this case is included in the business year at the end of August 2003, the imposition disposition of this case is unlawful (Subject to the separate statement of Nos. 4 and 5, the imposition disposition of this case is deemed to be 00 won out of the income amount transferred to AA in connection with UU claim transaction of this case, and the imposition disposition of this case was imposed 4 in the end of August 2003 (from June 1, 2003 to August 31, 2003) and the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the imposition disposition of this case is not deemed to have ceased to exist as the tax base of the pertinent business year, and the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the imposition disposition of this case was made at the end of the business year (from September 1, 2003 to Nov. 30, 2003) of the next business year, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the imposition disposition of this case is no longer accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the disposition of imposition Nos. 3, 5, and 6 of this case is justified, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.