2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. The plaintiff was established on May 15, 1992 and run the manufacturing and sales business of the industrial automation system.

A company that owns on August 28, 2009 red*, Kim** et al., 76.34% of its shares to 12 others.

10,000 shares of Co., Ltd. d**S (hereinafter referred to as d*S) 100,000 shares (hereinafter referred to as d*S)

The transfer of shares of this case to KRW 1.4 billion (14,00 per share) (hereinafter referred to as the "transfer contract of this case").

(1) The term "the Corporation" means

B. The Seoul Regional Tax Office’s shares shares in D**** from September 17, 2012 to November 15, 2012

As a result of that investigation, the Plaintiff transferred the shares of this case to Red*, Kim** et al., 12 others.

the transfer of low price lacking economic rationality, subject to the avoidance of wrongful calculation under the Corporate Tax Act.

under subsection (1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act; and

32,208 won assessed and notified the defendant of the taxation data.

(c) The Defendant, on the basis of the above taxation data, Red**, current* (redly*) purchased and title trust box;

The actual transfer value and the appraised value according to supplementary evaluation methods for the portion of stock transfer to Red*** by aggregating the shares acquired in the name of Hong**), Kim**

차액인 775,660,800원[=�42,600주(= 홍** 16,700주 + 유** 13,900주 + 김**

12,000 note x 18,208 note (=32,208 Won - 14,000) non-deductible of losses and red*, Kim*

On June 12, 2013, after disposing of it as other income, the notice of change in income amount (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case") is given to the Plaintiff, and the transfer of shares to 11 persons, such as this*

490,517,440 won was excluded from deductible expenses and disposed of as other outflow of outflow.

D. The Plaintiff filed an appeal for adjudication against the appeal, but the Tax Tribunal on July 21, 2014

Each of them was done.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The defendant was originally 'the plaintiff and d**, wald** (hereinafter referred to as 'wald**').

‘Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Fair Trade Act')' as an enterprise group*

Hong* is an affiliated company with which it is affiliated, Hong*** because it is an executive of D*****, Kim* because it is an executive of wrap**.

The transfer contract of this case is a related party under Article 87 (1) 7 of the Enforcement Decree.

Red*, Kim** The part on the transfer of this case was calculated by wrongful calculation, but at the time of the transfer of this case

Go, D***, Haws, Haw* was not included in the business group's assistant*, so the disposition of this case was unlawful.

of this chapter.

2) In the instant lawsuit, the Defendant owned d***6.34% of the Plaintiff’s shares and controlled d**tm by holding 76.34% of the Plaintiff’s shares, and red*, Kim**, Kim* because there were officers of d******.

Article 87 (1) 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree was a related party, claiming that the reason for the disposition is added or added.

modified, which is the basis of the initial disposition and the basic factual basis are identical.

No addition or modification of the grounds for disposition shall be allowed.

3) Even if not, the Plaintiff traded the instant shares at the market price, and the instant case

An enterprise showing signs of insolvency at the time of entering into a transfer contract, being managed by its creditor financial institutions

There are circumstances that cannot be deemed to be abnormal in disregarding the economic rationality of the above transfer contract, etc.

As such, the plaintiff's act does not constitute a "unfair calculation".

.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(i) the existence of the initial reason for action

The former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23589, Feb. 2, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply)

C) According to Article 87(1)7 of the Fair Trade Act, the pertinent corporation belongs to an enterprise group under the Fair Trade Act.

In case of a corporation, another affiliate belonging to the enterprise group and the officers of such affiliate shall be the corporation.

A business group is a specially related person, and according to Article 2 subparagraph 2 (a) of the Fair Trade Act, the same person.

of one or more companies whose business activities are controlled by the same person and the same person;

However, according to Article 3 subparagraph 1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act, Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Act shall apply.

A company substantially controlling its business pursuant to the standards as prescribed by the Presidential Decree means the same company

person, alone or together with the same person, not less than 30 per cent of the total number of shares issued by the corporation

the corporation's management, such as the appointment of its largest investor company and its officers;

A company which is deemed to exercise a dominant influence means a company.

The documents submitted by the Defendant alone are not subject to the same person at the time of entering into the transfer contract.

The facts that they belong to plaintiffs, d***, ws, wrap* and Kim**

Haw* It is insufficient to recognize the fact that he was an officer*, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it;

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 8, and 40, the Red*, the same person as an enterprise group* on June 30, 2009, and 37.5% of the plaintiff's shares.

On the other hand, while holding Ci**orp. was holding 50.1% of them, the Plaintiff

around 2009 to report to the Fair Trade Commission the current status of affiliated companies with which the Plaintiff and D*

Sheet** as affiliated company of an enterprise group* on a report drawn up in 2008 and 2009, as a report of enterprise group*

Since it is only possible to know the fact that the transfer contract of this case was not renewed, it cannot be viewed that at the time of the conclusion of the transfer contract of this case, the plaintiff, D*** was an affiliated company belonging to the enterprise group *, and ultimately, it was the original subsidiary.

It is reasonable to view that there is no reason for the disposition.

2) Whether to allow the addition or alteration of the grounds for the disposition

Since the object of tax litigation is the existence of income determined by the tax authority, the tax authority

of the tax disposition to the extent that the identity of the disposition is not undermined.

Until the completion of the tax disposition, it is recognized that the tax base amount recognized in the taxation exists objectively.

all the arguments and materials to be asserted and submitted (Supreme Court Decision 88Nu7255 delivered on December 22, 1989, etc.)

[See] The reasons why the defendant changed in the lawsuit of this case are 76.34% of the Plaintiff's shares ***

를 소유하는 최대출자자로서 디**스와 동일한 기업집단에 속해 있고, 홍**와 김**은 디**스의 임원으로서 특수관계자에 해당한다는 것인데, 이를 변경 전의 처분사유와 비교해 보면, 우선 조세법적 법률관계로 포섭하기 이전의 기초적ㆍ사회적 사실관계는 원고가 홍**, 김**에게 디**스의 주식 42,600주를 양도하였다는 것으로 동일하고, 피고는 이를 그대로 전제한 상태에서 다만 홍**와 김**이 원고와 특수관계에 있게 되는 법률적 근거만 달리 구성한 것이다. 즉 피고는 처분 당시에는 원고와 디**스, 싸이**가 기업집단 '보*'에 소속된 계열회사이고, 홍**와 김**이 계열회사인 디**스나 싸이**의 임원으로서 다른 계열회사인 원고와도 특수관계에 있다고 보았던 것이나, 이 소송에서는 원고가 디**스의 주식 76.34%를 소유하던 최대출자자로서 다네트웍스와 기업집단을 이루고 있고, 홍**와 김**은 원고가 지배하던 디**스의 임원으로서 원고와 특수관계에 있다고 주장하는 것이다.

Such a change in the grounds for disposition is not only identical with basic facts, but also identical with the change in the amount of income.

(1) the identity of the original disposition in terms of the subject matter, taxable year, and amount of tax

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that it is permitted.

3) Red*, Kim* Whether the plaintiff is a person with a special relationship.

According to Article 2 subparagraph 2 (a) of the Fair Trade Act and Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the same person alone.

or together with the same person, not less than 30 per cent of the total number of shares issued by the corporation

corporation which is a largest investor, the corporation shall be the same group of the same company.

D** 76.34% of the shares at the time of the transfer contract of this case.

The facts that the company is a major investor have no dispute between the parties, and the plaintiff and D**S are the same.

Red*, Kim**, Kim* was an affiliated company of Korea's business group and was an affiliated company of Korea's d**, its affiliated company's officers.

4) Whether the act constitutes wrongful calculation

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 52 (1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010) provides that "payment shall be made"

The head of the district tax office or the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office shall calculate the amount of income of domestic corporations.

Group of income of a corporation through transactions with a person with a special relationship as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

If it is deemed that the tax burden has been reduced unreasonably, the act or income of the corporation

income for each business year of the corporation, regardless of the amount to be calculated.

For this reason, the tax burden on the corporation's income under the above law has been unjustly reduced.

The term "cases where it is recognized" means cases where it is deemed unfair in terms of tax law because the type of transaction conducted by the corporation concerned is objectively deemed to disregard economic rationality.

It means that it means that (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du10767, Nov. 29, 2007).

In addition, the reason why the transfer of shares between a corporation and a related party is denied by wrongful calculation.

The burden of proving that a case constitutes a case of transfer at a price lower than the market price should be deemed to be the tax authority (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du5235, Oct. 15, 2004).

B) In the instant case:

The evidence submitted by the defendant alone is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff transferred the shares of this case to the Red**, Kim* at a price lower than the market price in an objective manner, disregarding economic rationality. Rather, comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 8 through 38, the plaintiff is notified on June 10, 2009 that the plaintiff shall take various procedures for the business normalization, such as the joint management procedures of creditor financial institutions under the Corporate Restructuring Promotion Act, by receiving a lower level from the credit risk assessment by the Korea Telecommunication Bank (hereinafter referred to as the "CS Bank"), which is the principal creditor bank, as a result of the credit risk assessment; ② Following the convocation of the CS Bank, the proposal for the dispatch, etc. of the creditor financial management body by the creditor financial institutions at the meeting of the creditor financial institutions management council held on June 18, 2009; ③ Accordingly, the plaintiff is dispatched between the TS Bank, the representative of the creditor financial institutions consultative council on June 30, 2009, to provide funds management services.

The fact that the management contract was concluded on July 2, 2009. ④ The Plaintiff transferred the securities including the instant shares, investment assets, and membership to the head of the Financial Management Body of the Financial Consultative Council of Creditor Council of Creditor Council on July 2, 2009, including the corporate seal impression, the employee seal impression, etc., and the securities including the instant shares, investment assets, and membership; ⑤ The plan was discussed on August 7, 2009 and August 14, 2009 to sell the instant shares to a third party by the creditor Financial Consultative Council of Creditor Council of Creditor Council of Creditor Council of creditor Financial Institutions as of August 28, 2009. 6. As of June 30, 2009, the instant shares were 9,413 won per share of the instant shares as of June 30, 209. 7 The Plaintiff notified the head of the Financial Management Body of creditor Financial Consultative Council of the intention to dispose of the instant shares to *, and the Plaintiff requested the approval from the board of directors*

(9) The Creditor Financial Institutions Council has resolved on the agenda to be transferred to 14,000 won

On October 9, 2009, when entering into an agreement to implement the Plaintiff’s business normalization program, the advice of the accounting firm

* * The shares of this case after review by the review report on corporate improvement of the Company

(10) In 2006, 670,000 won and more than 673 billion won, 2006, d**

In addition, the transfer contract of this case was concluded to have suffered loss of KRW 357920,00 won in 2007, and 1.5 billion won in 2008, and the 1.8 billion won in 2009 again incurred loss of KRW 1.8 billion in 2009, and according to the above facts of recognition, the transfer contract of this case was made under the status of the Plaintiff selected as an enterprise with insolvency signs and under the management of the creditor financial institutions council, and the transfer price was determined based on the accounting corporation's appraisal and evaluation and was approved by the creditor financial institutions council. Since the transfer contract of this case was objectively deemed to have neglected economic rationality, it cannot be deemed to have neglected the economic rationality.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.