2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 4/5 are the Plaintiff, and the remainder 1/5 are the Defendant respectively.

A. The Defendant reported the tax evasion of corporate tax on April 22, 2010 to June 24, 2010, conducted a tax investigation on corporate tax for the business year from 2005 to 2007 with respect to the Plaintiff Company, and confirmed the fact that the Plaintiff Company collected the sales claim of KRW 173,000,000 during the business year from April 22, 2010 to June 24, 2010, but omitted the interest income of KRW 308,358,50 ( KRW 158,208,500, KRW 103,60,000 in 206, KRW 46,550 in 207, KRW 173,000 in 206, but omitted in the account books.

B. Accordingly, on September 8, 2010, the defendant added the amount of KRW 308,358,50 to gross income, and added the amount of KRW 51,059,680 to corporate tax for the business year 2005, KRW 39,754,540 to corporate tax for the business year 2006, corporate tax for the business year 14,330,770 to be reverted to corporate tax for the business year 2007 (hereinafter "the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year 2007") to the plaintiff. In addition, the above disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year 2007 was issued to the plaintiff, and the above disposition was issued to the plaintiff in excess of KRW 481,358,50 (158,208,500, KRW 2760,000, KRW 27600, KRW 200, KRW 207,605,06).

C. On December 1, 2010, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on December 1, 201, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on June 8, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence l or 3, Eul evidence 1 or 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The illegality of the instant taxation disposition

The Defendant included KRW 24,050,000 in interest income toCC Digital System Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CC system”) at the amount of 46,550,000,000 as the omission of reporting on interest income accrued in the business year 2007 by the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CC system”). Of these, KRW 12,00,000 has already been included in the register as the interest income accrued from GaD, and reported corporate tax, the Defendant deemed the loan transaction and loan transaction with the aboveCC system as a separate transaction, and determined that all of KRW 24,050,00 as the omission of reporting on interest income. This is unlawful as it misleads the facts.

2) The illegality of the notice of change in the income amount of this case

The plaintiff borrowed money from EE and borrowed 173,00,000 won from the compulsory auction procedure during the business year of 2006, which was not repaid to E, was immediately recovered from 173,00,000 won, and failed to include the above money in the account book due to the failure to pay the above money in the account book. The defendant did not recognize the amount of the above money as the recognition of Gab FF, the representative director of the plaintiff, on the ground that it is unclear that the defendant is the person to whom it belongs. The plaintiff made a disposition to notify the change in the amount of income of this case to the plaintiff. This is

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) Details of the instant taxation disposition

A) The Plaintiff Company, while engaging in credit business by means of lending funds at a discount of promissory notes issued by the other party after having obtained provisional registration or establishment of a collateral security right on real estate as collateral, received the interest accrued therefrom from the account of ParkF, E-E, the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, the largest shareholder, and Park E-G, the spouse of the Plaintiff Company, for the purpose of tax evasion.

B) The Plaintiff Company also traded funds in the above manner with theCC system, and the details of financial transactions with the Plaintiff Company from 2005 to 2008, which were revealed by the promissory note, ParkF, and EE’s account transactions in the issuance of theCC system, are as follows.

C) Meanwhile, on the other hand, the copy of the register of ParkD (the representative is Park H, a form of Park H, a type of ParkD) owned by the actual operator of theCC system, 000-00 m2 and its ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) among the period from 2005 to 2008, the details of the establishment and termination of provisional registration of the instant real estate in the Plaintiff Company on the part of the Plaintiff Company appear as follows.

D) With respect to the details of the above monetary transaction and the details of establishment of provisional registration, Park Jong-chul, a representative director of theCC system, was in charge of the actual president in the course of the tax investigation, and in 2007, the plaintiff company established the provisional registration of ownership transfer registration right and borrowed KRW 200 million to the principal's house as security, and remitted KRW 24,050,000 to the defendant five times as interest in 207.

E) In addition, the director of the business year 2007 of the Plaintiff Company stated that the Plaintiff received interest of KRW 12 million from ParkD. The director of the business year 2007 of the Plaintiff Company stated that the Plaintiff lent KRW 200 million to ParkD but received KRW 100 million.

2) Details on the notification of the instant change in income amount

A) On the deposit certificate submitted by the Plaintiff Company, it was found that FF deposited a total of KRW 276 million over eight times from August 30, 2004 to January 3, 2005 in the name of EE.

B) The details of changes in loans to FF on the Short-term Loan Customer Director of the Plaintiff Company in the year 2006 and 2007 are as follows.

C) On April 14, 2006, the Plaintiff Company filed an application for dividend of KRW 173,545,272 (hereinafter “instant dividend”) with the amount of claim of KRW 300 million in a compulsory auction procedure for F-owned real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

1) As to the first argument

(4) On the other hand, the Plaintiff Company borrowed funds to the 200 billion won to the 200-year interest rate of 100 billion won from 205 to 207. The Plaintiff Company’s 200-year interest rate of 1 billion won on the 200-year interest rate of 00-year interest rate of 200-year interest rate of 100-year interest rate of 200-year interest rate of 200-year interest rate of 00-year interest rate of 200-year interest rate of 1 billion won. However, the Plaintiff Company’s interest rate of 200-year interest rate of 700-year interest rate of 00-year interest rate of 200-year interest rate of 10-year interest rate of 200-year interest rate of 200-year interest rate of 100-year interest rate of 200-year interest rate of 200-year interest rate of 207.

2) As to the second argument

A) As long as the revenue of a corporation that was released from the company without being entered in the account book is not clear, the tax authority cannot dispose of it as a bonus for the representative pursuant to the proviso of Article 106(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19891 of Feb. 28, 2007) unless it is stated in the account book, and in this case, the burden of proving that it is clear that it is reverted to it is the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu6747, Aug. 14, 1992).

B) In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the evidence as seen earlier and the overall purport of the arguments, namely, ① Plaintiff Company received the instant dividends by filing an application for dividend of KRW 300 million in the process of compulsory auction for real estate BB owned on April 14, 2006, and the amount of the said KRW 300 million was equal to the basic loan balance for BB in the business year 2006, the Plaintiff Company appears to have received the instant dividends through partial repayment of the loan to F. However, the instant dividends were immediately leaked after they were reverted to the Plaintiff Company, and it was not clear whether the Plaintiff Company ultimately reverted to EF by failing to make any entry in the account book. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant dividends were paid to EF under the pretext of the Plaintiff’s repayment without any specific evidence that the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have been paid from EF’s deposit in the name of EF, even if there was no objective evidence to prove that the Plaintiff’s repayment of the instant dividends was made under the name of EF.

3) Scope of revocation

As seen earlier, it is clear that the Defendant’s calculation of the legitimate amount of corporate tax for the business year 2007 by deeming the Plaintiff Company’s interest income return amount of KRW 46,550,000,000, which was included in the gross income, shall not be included in the gross income. As such, it is apparent that the Plaintiff Company’s calculation of the legitimate amount of corporate tax for the business year 2007, would be KRW 9,648,841, as stated in the attached Table. Therefore, the instant taxation disposition should be revoked within the scope exceeding the aforementioned amount of KRW 9,64

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.