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

The reasoning for this part is that the court's reasoning is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since it is reasonable to view the market price of the instant ship as KRW 00 billion, which is the selling price of the instant ship No. 1 on the grounds as delineated below, the sales price of the instant ship cannot be deemed as KRW 00 billion. Even if the market price of the instant ship cannot be deemed as KRW 00 billion, the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant ship’s market price is the selling price of the instant ship’s second sale price cannot be deemed as the selling price of the instant ship, even though the instant ship’s market price cannot be deemed as the selling price of the instant ship’s second sale price.

1) The market price under Article 52(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same) shall be deemed to include the appraisal value of a reliable appraisal institution. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the KRW 10.1 billion, which is the sale price of the first sale of the instant ship, is the market price of the instant ship, calculated according to the appraisal by the appraisal agency of two locations.

2) A vessel is difficult to calculate the market price due to its unique characteristics of the product itself, and the sale price of the second sale of the instant vessel is reflected in the unique circumstances of international trade and the special circumstances of 00 miles, and cannot be deemed as reflecting the objective exchange value of the instant vessel as it is considerably high compared to the construction cost of the instant vessel or the tax base or construction cost of the marine flag barge of a scale similar to that of the instant vessel. Therefore, the market price of the instant vessel is unclear, and thus, it shall be determined by an appraisal corporation pursuant to Article 89(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22577, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same). This is equivalent to KRW 00 billion as seen earlier.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

In a case where a corporation’s wrongful calculation division under Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act is deemed to have avoided or reduced tax burden by abusing the various forms of transactions listed in each subparagraph of Article 88(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act without using a reasonable method by a person having a special relationship, the said legal system is deemed to have denied it by the person having a right to taxation, and to have income objectively and reasonably deemed reasonable by the method prescribed in the statutes. In light of the economic person’s position, the said legal system applies only to cases where it is deemed to have neglected the economic rationality due to disregarding the calculation of unexpected and unreasonable acts. Determination of the economic rationality is based on whether the transaction was conducted in light of sound social norms and commercial practices, taking into account the various circumstances of the transaction, and should also be based on whether the transaction was conducted with a person having a special relationship, such as the transaction price and special circumstances at the time of the transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 208Du1541, Oct. 28, 2010).

"On the other hand, Article 88 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that one of the acts of wrongful calculation under Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act provides that a person with a special relationship, such as an investor, transfers an asset at a price lower than the market price, and Article 89 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the scope of the market price is similar to the transaction in question if there is a generally traded price between many and unspecified persons other than a person with a special relationship or a third party who is not a person with a special relationship." "The market price defined as the basis of a transfer of low-price which is the rejection of wrongful calculation" refers to an objective exchange value formed through a general and normal transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du4041, Jan. 16, 2004). In addition, Article 52 (2) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 89 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provide that the appraised value by an appraisal corporation shall be considered as the market price.

(ii) the facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 11 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and 12.

A) On November 15, 2010, the Plaintiff was notified of the request to submit an English quotation to the applicant for the purchase of the instant vessel from 00 Mauritius Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “00 Mauritius”).

B) On November 16, 2010, the Plaintiff sent a written estimate of the instant vessel and the instant vessel nationality certificate, as indicated in the contract date on January 20, 201, and February 28, 2011, the delivery date, the Busan Port, the sales price of the instant vessel, 21 million USD, and the instant vessel nationality certificate.

C) The vessel of this case at Tong Young-si on November 24, 2010, 0000

A. B examined the ship.

D) On December 27, 2010, the Plaintiff and the 00-Manin adjusted the terms and conditions of the contract for the instant vessel, and the Plaintiff sent to 00 Manin a draft of the contract (MA) with the following terms and conditions on December 27, 2010:

○ Contract Date: January 14, 201

○ Ship Price: US$ 00,000,000

○ Contract Deposit: 10% of the price and deposit in a new bank within five banking business days from the date of conclusion;

○ Payment: at the time of delivery of the ship (within three business days from the date of dispatch of notice of completion of preparation for delivery);

○ Prosecutor: The buyer, on November 24, 2010, inspected the ship in advance and accepted the result of the inspection, and thus this sale is complete and conclusive.

○ Delivery Date: By March 15, 2011 (by April 30, 2011)

○ Delivery Place: Busan Port or Jinhae Port

E) However, on December 27, 2010, the Plaintiff decided to sell the instant vessel at KRW 10.1 billion to each 00 billion, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the instant vessel on December 29, 2010.

F) On January 12, 2011, when the vessel of this case was purchased, both parties entered into a contract with 00 Mazin with the following content:

○ Contract Date: January 12, 2011

○ Ship Price: US$ 00,000,000

○ Contract Deposit: 10% of the price and deposit in a new bank within five banking business days from the date of conclusion;

○ Payment: at the time of delivery of the ship (within three business days from the date of dispatch of notice of completion of preparation for delivery);

○ Prosecutor: The buyer, on November 24, 2010, inspected the ship in advance and accepted the result of the inspection, and thus this sale is complete and conclusive.

○ Time of India: up to April 15, 2011

○ Delivery Place: Busan Port or Jinhae Port

3) Determination

A) According to the above facts, at the time of the conclusion of the first sale of this case, the Plaintiff completed most agreements on the sale of the ship of this case, including vessel inspection and specific terms and conditions of the sale and purchase with 00 marine and the ship of this case. The Plaintiff entered into the second sale and purchase of this case with 00 marine immediately after the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the ship of this case. In light of the fact that most of the terms and conditions of the second sale and purchase of this case had already been agreed with 00 marine and 00,000, which is general and normal transaction, it can be deemed that the sale price reflects the objective exchange values at the time of the ship of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the sale price of this case was the market price of the ship of this case at the time of the first sale and purchase of the ship of this case.

Therefore, although the market price of the ship of this case is about 00 billion won, as long as the plaintiff sells the ship of this case to 00 billion won to 00 billion won, it constitutes "the time when the assets stipulated in Article 88 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act are transferred at a price below the market price". Thus, the first sale of this case is subject to the avoidance of wrongful calculation under Article 52 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act.

B) As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the purchase and sale of the instant ship was based on the pre-sale agreement (Evidence No. 5) entered into with the Plaintiff on May 3, 2010, and that the sale price was only determined in accordance with the market price appraisal under the pre-sale agreement. However, considering the fact that the pre-sale agreement was made between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s representative director, who is a specially related party, and that the content of the agreement is very simple, and that it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff necessary to sell the instant ship to 00 at the time of the pre-sale agreement, the Plaintiff’s entry in the pre-sale agreement on the instant ship is difficult. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is unacceptable.

In addition, the Plaintiff asserted that the sale price of the instant No. 2, which was made after the first sale, cannot be seen as the “market price of the instant No. 1 sale.” However, the time of transaction cases is merely one part of the transaction terms. If the transaction case’s sales price determined in the transaction case is close to the time of transaction case and the transaction price subject to the avoidance of wrongful calculation, even if the transaction case was made after the transaction subject to the avoidance of wrongful calculation, the “market price of the transaction subject to the avoidance of wrongful calculation” can be calculated on the basis of the transaction case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

C) Therefore, after determining the market price of the ship in the first sale of this case as KRW 00,00,000,000, the market price of the ship in the second sale of this case, the disposition of this case where the Defendant imposed corporate tax and additional tax by including the remaining money after deducting the sale price and brokerage fee reported by the Plaintiff from the above sale price as gross income for the business year 2010 is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.