Article 24 (Calculation of Gross Amount of Income)

2. Each claim of the plaintiff headship, and each claim of the plaintiff YO and the plaintiff YO and the remaining claims of the plaintiff YO are dismissed.

3.The defendant and the defendant

(1) The costs of the lawsuit incurred between the Plaintiff’s headline ○ are assessed against the Plaintiff’s headline ○.

(2) 9/10 of the costs of lawsuit incurred between Plaintiff Yellow Dust, the above Plaintiff, while 1/10 of the costs of lawsuit, the Defendant:

(3) 9/10 of the costs of lawsuit incurred between Plaintiff Park Ma, Inc., and 1/10 of the costs of lawsuit by the above Plaintiff Park Ma, the Defendant

Each share shall be borne.

201

26,896,750 won

759,820 won

503,150,440 won

202

1,913,042,960 won

5,092,890 won

376,810,240 won

203

867,013,600 won

904,558,700 won

176,473,010 won

(1) When it is difficult for the reorganization company to borrow funds from the financial sphere No. 1 and No. 2 due to the third default on July 2001, 201, the reorganization company requested that the Plaintiff ○○○○ (Seoul ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○)

(2) The method of lending money to the reorganization company by the plaintiffs is not a method of preparing and delivering a loan certificate, but a method of issuing and delivering a bill and a check. If the plaintiffs lend money to the reorganization company, the liquidation company issues and delivers a bill and a check to the reorganization company, and the liquidation company directly pays the borrowed money at the due date, receives the refund of the bill and the check, or the above plaintiffs receive the payment by presenting the bill and the check. If the reorganization company is unable to pay the borrowed money due to the lack of funds at the due date, the existing bill and check issued and issued a new bill and the check in exchange was returned.

(3) The Plaintiffs, as seen above, lent money to the reorganization company, set the interest rate of 3 to 30% per month between the reorganization company and the reorganization company, and most of them were 3 to 4% per month.

(4) On October 7, 2003, the reorganization company reported to the tax office that the Plaintiffs did not pay taxes at all even if the Plaintiffs received large-amount interest at a high interest rate over a long-term period from the reorganization company on a long-term basis.

(5) The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on the ○○ Radio wave from September 16, 2004 to December 27, 2004, and confirmed that the Plaintiffs did not report global income tax even after receiving interest as indicated below from the reorganization company, and notified the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the address of the Plaintiffs to the Defendant of the taxation data.

201

371,044,267

3,000,000 won

780,066,600 won

202

3,877,477,623 won

24,550,000 won

791,929,492 won

203

1,925,798,000 won

2,006,672,666

419,935,00 won

Total

6,174,319,890 won

2,034,222,666 won

1,991,931,092

(6) On February 11, 2005, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiffs of the comprehensive income tax as follows:

201

26,896,750 won

759,820 won

503,150,440 won

202

1,913,042,960 won

5,092,890 won

376,810,240 won

203

867,013,600 won

904,558,700 won

176,473,010 won

Total

3,006,953,310 won

910,411,410 won

1,056,43,690 won

(7) The plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the above disposition on April 30, 2005 and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on September 16, 2005 as the National Tax Tribunal No. 3618, 3619, and 3620. However, the National Tax Tribunal dismissed all the plaintiffs' claims on July 10, 2006.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, Eul 1-6, each of the statements (including additional numbers)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) The liquidation company accounts for a considerable portion of the amount of principal payment out of the amount deposited in the plaintiffs' account. The defendant calculated the principal and interest income loaned by the liquidation company to the plaintiffs based on the promissory notes and the number of shares offered by the liquidation company to the plaintiffs, but the method of calculating the defendant's calculation is erroneous since the promissory notes and the number of shares per exchange issued by the reorganization company for the extension of the date of the above transaction is a substantial part of the transaction. In addition, even if there is a supporting document (e.g., 8, 9) claiming that the plaintiffs received interest from the reorganization company, there are cases where a person unrelated to the plaintiffs is stated as an addressee and it is impossible to confirm the addressee of the check, and (iii) there are cases where a check is not deposited in the plaintiff's passbook, and it is difficult to view that the amount is excessive or inconsistent with the payment of interest, and therefore, the defendant must prove that the plaintiffs received the above amount as interest.

(2) Since the reorganization company entered the company reorganization procedure, the plaintiffs should first deduct the principal from the reorganization company.

(3) As long as the claims leased to the reorganization company by the plaintiffs constitute a claim that cannot be recovered, the receipt time of interest income shall be deemed to be the time when the interest is actually paid in the future. Therefore, the amount received by the plaintiffs shall not be deemed as

(4) Since the plaintiffs' claims are undisclosed and uncertain bonds in relation to reorganization proceedings of the reorganization company, and it is impossible to collect the claims, they should first be deducted from the principal even if they were recovered, and interest income should be recognized within the remainder.

(b) the relevant regulations;

Article 16 of the Income Tax Act (Interest Income)

Article 24 (Calculation of Gross Amount of Income)

Article 476 (Satisfaction of Designated Performance by Civil Act)

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) From July 2001 to October 2, 2003, a reorganization company borrowed money from the Plaintiffs, which was conducted by issuing and delivering bills and checks instead of preparing and delivering a loan certificate. The reorganization company submitted data separately prepared the details of interest payment and the details of redemption of principal when it reported tax evasion, but the Plaintiffs did not submit all the data specifying the details of the money received from the reorganization company.

(2)The Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Gahap53482, 9085 delivered on May 10, 2006 recognized "The amount that the reorganization company borrowed from the plaintiff YO, etc. through the plaintiff YOOO, etc. was 12,756,430,133 won in total, and the amount that the liquidation company repaid to the plaintiff YO and ○○○○ (the representative director of the plaintiff YOO), etc. was 16,068,66,955."

(3) Based on the notice of tax evasion, the Defendant investigated the details of the deposit and endorsement by the holder of the final check, and confirmed that the payment of the interest paid by the reorganization company to the Plaintiffs is as follows, excluding the case where the recipient is the last recipient, and the reorganization company is the addressee.

201

371,044,267

3,000,000 won

780,066,600 won

202

3,877,477,623 won

24,550,000 won

791,929,492 won

203

1,925,798,000 won

2,006,672,666

419,935,00 won

Total

6,174,319,890 won

2,034,222,666 won

1,991,931,092

On the other hand, the defendant, with respect to the lending of money between the reorganization company, the plaintiffs and the related parties, investigated the details of the deposit and endorsement by the holder of the check, and organized the loan principal, principal repayment date, repayment amount, and unpaid amount. According to this, the amount reaches 7790 million won of the outstanding principal (this is the same as the amount of the bond principal claimed by the plaintiffs and related parties that they should be repaid by the reorganization company).

(4)After the final default on October 8, 2003, the reorganization company commenced the composition procedure on January 13, 2004, but the composition procedure was abolished on June 15, 2004, and entered the company reorganization procedure on July 20, 2004. The plaintiff YO and YOO have reorganization claims against the reorganization company as follows. The reorganization plan for each of the above claims is as follows:

Security

1,000,000,000

1,000,000,000

Redemptions in installments for the second year (2006), the third year (2007)

Reorganization Claim

429,800,000 won

1,373,700,000 won

65% shall be exchanged with stocks of a reorganization company equivalent to 1/10 of the amount of credit by conversion of sugar and investment, and 35% shall be repaid in installments for six years from 5th (2009) to 10th (2014).

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap 1-22, Eul 1-71 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Whether the funds received by the plaintiffs are interest interest or not

In a case where a debtor bears several obligations for the same kind to the same creditor in a monetary loan for consumption, if the offer of performance does not extinguish the entire obligation, the person effecting the obligation may designate any of the obligations at that time and appropriate it for the repayment (Article 476(1) of the Civil Act). In this case, in light of the fact that the reorganization company submits clearly distinguished data from the payment of interest to the plaintiffs at the time of notification of tax evasion, the payment of the obligation to the plaintiffs was made at the time of the payment of interest, and the evidence submitted by the defendant corresponds to this, and the evidence presented by the defendant is not submitted at all to support the plaintiffs' claim, the liquidation company should be deemed to have expressed its intent that the payment of interest was made at the time of the repayment to the plaintiffs, which would be appropriated for the payment of interest

In this regard, the plaintiffs claim that there is a person irrelevant to the plaintiffs or that they should not deposit to the plaintiffs' account during the check payment. However, in light of the fact that the plaintiffs who received the check issued by the reorganization company as interest payment can deliver the check to other persons without endorsement, and that the plaintiffs are not able to submit all evidence supporting the above claim, the plaintiffs' assertion is rejected.

In addition, as seen in the above facts, unless the defendant is unable to confirm the addressee of the check or the addressee is the reorganization company, the plaintiffs' assertion disputing this is without merit, unless it is excluded from the amount of interest received.

Next, the plaintiffs asserted that the amount is excessive or inconsistent with each other in terms of interest. However, inasmuch as the plaintiffs did not submit any evidence to support the fact that the reorganization company appropriated for the repayment of interest or appropriated the funds received from the reorganization company for the repayment of principal (the plaintiffs leased large amounts of money to the reorganization company over a large number of occasions during the process of operating the corporate bonds business, and received large amounts of interest at a high rate of 3 to 30% per month from the reorganization company, it is clear that the relevant book was prepared. This is not submitted even though it was discarded or kept for the purpose of avoiding the tax liability by nullifying the national existence-based tax right, which is the foundation of the State, even if it was discarded or kept for the purpose of avoiding the tax evasion of taxes other than the tax of this case, the plaintiffs' assertion is not accepted by the plaintiffs.

Therefore, it is legitimate that the Defendant recognized the interest income amount of the Plaintiffs as above (excluding the interest income amount of the Plaintiff in 2003 on the YO and YO).

(2) Determination on the global income tax for the 2003 year on the Plaintiff Yellow ○ and Pambling Ma

The issue of the existence of interest income under the Income Tax Act cannot be discussed regardless of the possibility of recovering the principal claim, which is the source of income generated. Thus, in a case where a part of a claim exists and it becomes objectively obvious that it is impossible to recover the remainder of the claim as of the time of recovery, it should be deemed that there was no realization of the interest income itself, which satisfies the taxation requirements in the pertinent taxable year as long as

In this case, inasmuch as the reorganization company entered the reorganization proceedings on October 2003, entered the company, and 65% of the reorganization claims of the plaintiff YO and YO was exchanged with the shares of the reorganization company at par value equivalent to 1/10 of the amount of credit through hot and debt-equity swap, the claim equivalent to 65% 9/10 of the amount of credit out of each reorganization claim shall be deemed to fall under a case where it becomes objectively obvious that the collection of the claim is impossible. Thus, the interest income amount belonging to the year 2003 shall be reduced to the amount corresponding to the above part (the amount shall be deemed to be appropriated to the change of principal).

Reorganization Claim Amount

429,800,000 won

1,373,700,000 won

x 0.65

279,370,000 won

892,905,00 won

x 0.9

251,433,00 won

803,614,500 won

Interest income in 2003

2,006,672,666

- 251,433,000

1,755,239,666 won

419,935,00 won

-803,614,500

0 won

Therefore, the tax amount of global income for the year 2003 on the plaintiff Yellow ○ shall be KRW 789,259,570 (the fraction less than 10 won shall not be calculated pursuant to Article 47(1) of the Management of the National Funds Act) as shown in the separate sheet. The legitimate tax amount of global income for the year 2003 against the plaintiff Yellow ○ shall be zero (0). Thus, the exceeding part of the disposition in this case is unlawful.

On the other hand, the plaintiff 1, 2006 and 2007 asserted that the reorganization claim is a claim which cannot be recovered, or an unregistered and uncertain claim, but the reorganization security is a plan to be repaid in installments in 2006 and 2007, and 35% of the reorganization claim is a plan to be repaid in installments in six years from 2009 to 2014, and 65% of the reorganization claim is exchanged with the shares of the reorganization company with a face value equivalent to 1/10 of the amount of credit, it is difficult to view that the collection of claims equivalent to the face value of the shares of the reorganization company, which are subject to the above plan for redemption, is objectively obvious.

Therefore, the above plaintiffs' assertion is difficult to accept.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's detailed global income and disposition on February 11, 2005 in excess of KRW 789,259,570 among the detailed global income and disposition on February 11, 2005 against the plaintiff YYO and the global income and disposition on the plaintiff YYO for the year 2003 are unlawful. Thus, each of them is revoked, and each of the claims of the plaintiff YO and the remaining claims of the plaintiff YO and the plaintiff YO are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.