1.(a)

Article 76(5) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same) (hereinafter “instant legal provision”) provides “In cases where a corporation (excluding corporations prescribed by Presidential Decree) is supplied goods or services from a business operator prescribed by Presidential Decree in connection with its business and fails to obtain evidentiary documents referred to in any subparagraph of Article 116(2) or receives false evidentiary documents, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall add an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the amount of such goods or services received differently from the fact to the corporate tax, except in cases where the proviso to Article 116(2) applies.”

shall be collected as such.

"" is defined as ".

This means that, in the event of failure to receive evidentiary documents prescribed by the Corporate Tax Act, even if the payment of expenses is recognized by other documents and the inclusion in deductible expenses is permitted, additional tax shall be imposed at a certain rate.

In addition, Articles 120(3) and 158(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24357, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter the same) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24357, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter the same) under the delegation of the legal provisions of this case provide that “business operators prescribed by Presidential Decree” referred to in the legal provisions of this case refer to corporations other than nonprofit corporations, “business operators under Article 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act excluding simplified taxable persons,” and “business operators under Article 28 of the Income Tax Act, etc.” are not limited to those who have registered business under the Value-Adde

In light of the legislative intent of the legal provision of this case and the text of the relevant provision, it is stipulated in the legal provision of this case.