(a) each imposition of the corporate tax of 10,029,420 won for the business year 2005, 10,054,290 won for the business year 2006, and 10,406,450 won for the business year 2007;

(b) Value-added tax of 1,915,930 won for the first period of 2006, value-added tax of 1,923,600 for the second period of 206, value-added tax of 2,007, 610 won for the second period of 2006, and value-added tax for the first period of 2007; and

2,442,320 won, value-added tax 1,913,300 won, value-added tax 1,241,890 won, value-added tax 2, 2008, value-added tax 700,050 won, value-added tax 2, 2008, value-added tax 834,410 won, value-added tax 834,410 won, value-added tax 2, 209, value-added tax 1,056,840 won, respectively, for the second period of 209;

C. The imposition disposition of KRW 61,195,873 in excess of the amount of KRW 65,788,220 in the business year 2008 and the imposition disposition of KRW 44,526,640 in the business year 2009 and the imposition disposition of KRW 40,561,260 in excess of the amount of KRW 40,561

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation operating real estate rental business and building management business established on January 19, 1971. The Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff’s honorary chairperson and the controlling shareholder KRW 144,342,360 in 208, the sum of KRW 50,766,090 in 209, and KRW 195,108,150 in 2009 as the benefit amount (hereinafter “central amount”), and paid corporate tax by adding each of the above benefits to deductible expenses in the pertinent business year, and paid corporate tax for each of the above benefits to the Plaintiff during the taxable period of value-added tax from February 2, 2005 to December 2, 2009 (hereinafter “instant building”). After concluding a lease agreement with the EE Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EE Securities”), a person with a special relationship, for the pertinent business year, the EE Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EE Securities”) and for the pertinent taxable period.

B. From October 19, 2010 to November 17, 2010, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, based on the result of the tax investigation, deemed the key amount paid by the Plaintiff to leds as expenses unrelated to business and excluded the Plaintiff from deductible expenses, and the Plaintiff deemed the leased of the instant building at the EE securities Dong branch by deeming that the Plaintiff leased the instant building at the low price, and applied the provisions of Article 52 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same) to the calculation of gross income of KRW 124,426,00 corresponding to the difference by applying the unfair act committed by Article 52 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 201; hereinafter the “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and caused a request for examination to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on April 19, 201, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on June 30, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 8 evidence, Eul 1, 2 and 5 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since leD was directly involved in the Plaintiff’s business, as the Plaintiff’s founder and the honorary chairperson, who is attending the office 3-4 times a month in order to instruct the funding plan and instructions and directly approve important documents, it is unlawful that the Defendant excluded the key amount paid as wages to leD from the expenses of office-related expenses. Furthermore, the Defendant erred by misapprehending the real situation such as the agreement and rental transaction practices between the Plaintiff and E-securities, and by calculating and comparing the rent rate by applying the fixed deposit rate applied to the calculation of the rent deemed to be applied under the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act without any justifiable ground.

B. Relevant statutes

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

A) Article 26 of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that an excessive or unreasonable amount of losses under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree among the following subparagraphs shall not be included in deductible expenses in calculating the income amount for each business year of a domestic corporation. Article 43(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that where a corporation pays remuneration to an officer or employee who is a controlling stockholder, etc. (including a person in a special relationship with the controlling stockholder, etc.; hereinafter the same shall apply) to an officer or employee other than the controlling stockholder, etc. in the same position without justifiable grounds, the excess amount shall not

B) According to the overall purport of the Plaintiff’s statements and arguments as to this case’s health class, Gap’s evidence Nos. 2, 4, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 5, it was registered as a director at the Plaintiff’s corporate register from November 8, 2002 to March 17, 2009 as the Plaintiff’s controlling shareholder, and the non-standing position was not paid by the Plaintiff’s payment of wages from January 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009. Thus, in light of the Plaintiff’s major shareholder’s above facts that the Plaintiff did not receive remuneration from the Plaintiff’s non-standing position for a period of 195,108,150 won (14,342,360 won in 208, 50,76,090 won in 209, and 50,76,090 won in 209, the amount of remuneration of the Plaintiff’s non-standing position was not recognized by the Plaintiff’s controlling shareholder.

다) 이에 대하여 원고는 원고의 설립자이자 명예회장으로서 윤DD은 계속하여 원고의 업무에 관여해 왔기 때문에 급여를 지급하여야 하는데, 국제통화기금(IMF) 구제금융 당시 원고가 유통자금 부족으로 소유하고 있던 건물을 헐값에 처분한 경험이 있어 원고의 유보자금이 많이 적립된 후에 윤DD에게 급여를 지급하기로 함에 따라 원고의 현금유동성이 개선된 2008년경에 이르러서야 비로소 윤DD에게 쟁점금액을 지급하게 된 것이므로 김FF과 달리 윤DD에게 쟁점금액을 보수로 지급한 데에는 정당한 사유가 있다는 취지로 주장하나, 이 사건 변론에 나타난 아래의 사정들에 비추어 볼 때, 증인 이QQ의 증언만으로는 이를 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

① According to the statements in Gap evidence 7-1 through 4, around 2008, when the plaintiff paid the key amount to leapD, the cash liquidity compared to the plaintiff's total liabilities was significantly improved compared to around 1998, which was at the time of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) remedying financing, but the plaintiff did not appear to have been paid to leapD before the International Monetary Fund (JMF), but did not submit any remuneration payment rules, etc. to confirm that the plaintiff had been paying the plaintiff's remuneration to the honorary chairperson internally.

② Although the Plaintiff was a non-standing director, the Plaintiff asserts that leD, which was directly involved in the Plaintiff’s work as a non-standing director, could not be the same as KimF, another non-standing director. However, there is no evidence to prove that KimF was not involved in the Plaintiff’s work as a non-standing director, and it does not constitute a leat, contrary to leD even though the financial structure improved around 2008, that the Plaintiff did not pay any remuneration to KimF.

③ Also, under the following circumstances, Gap evidence 2 and Eul evidence 3 were revealed by the purport of the entire statement and oral argument, that is, at the time of the investigation (from October 19, 2010 to November 17, 2010) into the plaintiff by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, the investigating public officials belonging to the Seoul Regional Tax Office did not have the duty to work at the plaintiff's office. The plaintiff's employees did not work at the plaintiff's office. The plaintiff's employees did not work at the plaintiff's honorary director's office. The plaintiff's visiting DaD as an honorary director's office with DaD's separate office's head's office's head's DaD's head's office's head's Doz (the plaintiff's act)'s representative director's Doz (the plaintiff's director's Doz)'s director's director's head's Doz's head's 2nd meeting's letter of confirmation that the plaintiff's director's Do's director's head's 92.

D) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the issue amount the Plaintiff paid to leD should be recognized as deductible expenses is without merit.

2) Determination on the second argument

A) Contents and interpretation of the relevant laws and regulations

① In the event that a corporation’s act of wrongful calculation under Article 52 of the former Corporate Tax Act is deemed to have avoided or reduced tax burden by abusing all the forms of transactions listed in each subparagraph of Article 8(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act without reasonable methods with a person having a special relationship, it shall be limited to cases where the taxation authority denies it and deemed to have income in a manner prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes. Determination of whether it is economic rationality or not should be made based on whether the relevant transaction constitutes an unfair transaction with a person having a special relationship under Article 8(1)5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du14257, Dec. 13, 2007; Supreme Court Decision 200Du14257, Apr. 1, 2007).

② Article 13(1)3-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that “The market price of services supplied by a person who unfairly lowers the supply of such services shall be the base of value-added tax, and Articles 50(1) and 52(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act 2) provides that “The price unfairly lowers the supply price of goods and services” under Article 13(1)3-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act means the price which is lower than the market price which is recognized to unfairly reduce the tax burden on the supply price of goods and services in transactions with a person with a special relationship (Article 52(1)); “The market price of services, which becomes the basis for whether a person with a special relationship receives a lower price than the market price, shall be based on the price continuously traded with many and unspecified persons other than a person with a special relationship or a third party transaction (Article 50(2).

(3) Therefore, in light of the relevant laws and legal principles as seen earlier, the issue is whether the Defendant applied the method of calculating the market price of real estate leasing services for the Plaintiff’s EE securities (hereinafter “instant leasing services”), and thus, this is first examined.

B) According to Gap evidence 2 and Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the defendant calculated the rental deposit interest rate of Article 49-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, which is a special provision for calculating the tax base for real estate rental service, and calculated the rental deposit of Article 49-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, by dividing the sum of the deemed rent as the monthly rent as the leased rent (hereinafter "the market price calculation method of this case") and dividing it into the leased rent, and then calculating the rental price of the E-securities (hereinafter "the market price calculation method of this case"), between 2005 and 209, the JJJ and KFD calculated the rental price of the leased object from each plaintiff, and then, the defendant alleged that it was legitimate to calculate the market price of the E-S securities of this case and the E-S market price of this case by calculating the rental price of the E-S market price of this case, while it did not apply the E-S market price of the E-S market price of this case.

C) However, in full view of the following circumstances revealed in the instant pleadings, the Defendant’s method of calculating the market price of the instant case cannot be deemed lawful. As such, the disposition imposing corporate tax and value-added tax on a different premise among the instant dispositions is unlawful.

① According to the calculation method of this case, the market price of this case’s lease service is calculated based on the deemed rent calculated by multiplying the deposit deposit of JJJ and KKD located on the same floor as the EE Securities Youngdong Branch by the fixed deposit interest rate under the provisions of Article 49-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act. This cannot be said to be the price continuously traded or the price generally traded with a third party in a situation similar to the transaction in question, and thus, it cannot be said to be the market price under Article 89(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 150(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act.

② In calculating the market price of this case’s lease service, the Defendant calculated the market price in such a way as seen earlier without any specific grounds without calculating the market price, where the actual examples of transactions under Article 89(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 50(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act cannot be discovered, or where the market price cannot be calculated in such a way, the appraised value under Article 89(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, or where the market price cannot be calculated in such a way, pursuant to Article 89(4)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, by the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the market price of the relevant asset, less the amount of security deposits or deposits received in relation to the provision of the relevant asset, from the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the market price. However, in calculating the market price in such a way, the market price is not presented.

③ Furthermore, according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 9, and 10, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 (including each number), the plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the lessee of the building owned by the plaintiff including EE securities that are specially related parties, and it appears that the amount calculated by multiplying the lease deposit amount by 1.5% from the above rent after deducting the lease deposit actually received from the lessee from the above rent was set as monthly rent. The EE securities were set as 60% to 10% from the other lessee, unlike the rate of interest calculated as the monthly rent between the EE securities and other lessees who are not specially related parties, and thus, it cannot be seen that the rate of the lease deposit amount was unfairly lower than the monthly rent in light of the sound practice of the parties to the transaction of the E EE securities, and thus, it cannot be seen that the rate of the lease deposit was set as an economic rationality in some cases.

(d)Indivates

Among the dispositions in this case, the part of the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year of 2008 and 2009 based on the inclusion of the issue amount in the calculation of the income amount is legitimate, and the part of the disposition which corrected corporate tax and value-added tax by the Defendant deeming that the Defendant leased the building in this case at low prices is unlawful. Therefore, each of the dispositions in this case and the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year of 2005 through 207 is unlawful. Each of the dispositions in this case is imposed for the business year of 2008 and 2009 only for the remaining parts except the disposition imposing corporate tax according to the inclusion of the issue amount in the calculation of the income amount. Based on the defendant's taxation data, the part exceeding 61,195,873 of the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year of 208 and the part which exceeds 40,526,61,260 of the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year of 209 is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are groundless.