2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

3. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On December 3, 1996, the Plaintiff and Lesorcom (hereinafter “ Lesorcom”) concluded a contract under which the Plaintiff would establish and operate a comprehensive advertising sales company by investing 57.5% and Lesorcom’s 42.5% in order to revitalize the advertising business using the same video news electronic sign board system (hereinafter “electronic sign board”) (hereinafter “the instant club contract”), and accordingly, established the Digitalsort Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “disort”) on January 3, 1997.

In lieu of making profits by acting on behalf of the Plaintiff and Lereredcom as an electronic sign board, such as advertising orders, advertising fees, and the issuance of tax invoices, and the management of advertisers, the Dred and Dred agreed to pay a certain amount monthly amount every month to the Plaintiff, etc. under the name of the electronic sign board usage fees (hereinafter referred to as “media usage fees”).

(b) Advertising business using an electronic sign board shall be comprised of manufacturing and installing the electronic sign board, operating the electronic sign board, acting as an advertising agent (such as ordering the advertisement, receiving the advertisement fee and issuing the tax invoice, managing the advertiser, etc.).

The manufacture and installation of an electronic sign board shall be conducted by manufacturing an electronic sign board which requires 20 to 3 billion won, and Lehovahioncom, who mainly manufactures and installs an electronic sign board, financed funds by means of the so-called financial leasing that received a loan from a leasing company for the cost of manufacturing and installing an electronic sign board. Then, an electronic sign board should be installed on the rooftop or wall of a building with at least five floors, but not more than 13 floors, and the Plaintiff, etc. shall own the building directly or lease the rooftop or wall from the building owner (hereinafter referred to as "lease"), and the installation and operation of an electronic sign board shall be stipulated as permitted matters under the Outdoor Advertisement, etc. Control Act, so in order to install and operate an electronic sign board, the Plaintiff, etc. shall obtain permission for the installation of an outdoor sign board from the competent administrative agency or take over it from the existing permitting authority (hereinafter referred to as "exclusive sign board permission right"), and the Plaintiff, etc., etc. shall have the right of lease and permission of the electronic sign board under their management as follows:

The name and lease users of the table building located in the main sentence, or owners of 1,000, 1, 2,000, 3, 1,000,000, 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00

(hereinafter referred to as “electronic display at the time of the instant trade agreement” with respect to 19 electronic display boards

C. After that, the electronic display boards used by the Plaintiff and Lear Ethicalcom were added as follows:

In the case of Plaintiff 21, Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 27, Jung-gu 28, 27, 28, 24, 25, 5, Nam-ro Seoul, Jongno-gu 24, Seoul, Jongno-gu 24, 5, Nam-ro 5, Nam-ro 5, Nam-ro 25, Nam-gu, Seoul, Seoul, 25, 25, 15, 26, 15, 26, 15, 26, 15, 26, 13, 27, 27, 27, 27, 27, 27, 15, 15, 202, 202, 202, 202, 202, 202, 202, 203, 202, 202, 303,000,000.

D. However, around February 1998, the Dregrador succeeded to the status of the lessee under the lease agreement to the electronic displays, for which Leregrad Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod d Dod d Dod Dod d Dod Dod d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d., but among them, the lessee was changed on October 1, 199.

E. Around 2001, the Defendant imposed corporate tax and value-added tax from September 1, 2001 to 200, as stated in the Plaintiff’s claim, on September 1, 2001, for the following reasons.

(1) The wrongful act and calculation panel for the long-term unrecovered claim for the royalty of media against the DNA molded ship

The Defendant’s calculation of wrongful acts was denied on the part of the Plaintiff’s delayed collection of the claim for the use fee of the media for a long period of time, and the interest rate of the Plaintiff’s totaling KRW 3,396,582,740 in the calculation of earnings in the calculation of earnings (the Plaintiff’s interest rate of KRW 21,506,125, 13,311,912, 200, 200, 2884, 200, 1546,859, 200, 3,396,582,740 in the calculation of earnings in the calculation of earnings (the Plaintiff’s interest rate of the use fee of the media was 21,506,125 won in the year 198, 199, 23,311, 912 won in the calculation of losses, 200,341,486 won in the calculation of losses).

(2) Non-Inclusion of expenses in deductible expenses, such as electricity charges, rent, maintenance and repair charges for electric display boards owned by a DNA molded ship

From September 198 to September 200, the Plaintiff spent 1,644,187,710 won in total as electricity charges, rental fees, maintenance expenses, etc. from around September 1998 to around September 200, and added the amount to the Plaintiff’s expense. Among them, the Plaintiff included KRW 1,036,825,196 in total as electricity charges, etc. of electronic display boards to be borne by the Digital Signature Comparison, a person with a special relationship. As such, the Plaintiff’s input tax deduction was denied on the ground that the Plaintiff’s business is non-related costs and expenses, and that the Plaintiff’s input tax deduction is an input tax amount for expenditures not related to the Plaintiff’s business.

(3) The amount exceeding the scope of the depreciation relating to the acquisition by the non-party 1 of the electric display license and non-deductible of the paid interest

In around the end of 197, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Korea Industrial Lease Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Industrial Lease”) and the Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the electric sign board and the electric sign board supply of the Seocho-ro 2,000,000 won of lease amounting to KRW 8.62,66 million of the lease amount. However, the Defendant was deemed to have acquired the right to lease and electric sign board from Nonparty 1, 3.62,00,000 of the lease amount as the false amount, the right to permit the lease and the electric sign board from Nonparty 1, 3.62,000 won of the lease amount paid to the industrial lease from 198 to 200, divided the lease amount equivalent to KRW 3.6,60,000 of the lease amount paid to the industrial lease from 198 to 200, and the Plaintiff was subject to the scope of depreciation of interest paid to the corporation in excess of deductible expenses for the principal amount corresponding to KRW 19606,9604,9606.

(4) Gross income in the calculation of earnings from the omission of electric display defects compensation received as Lera’scom

On October 1, 1997, the Defendant accounted for the Plaintiff as having received KRW 65,40 million from Nonparty 1 as having received KRW 650,000,00 from Nonparty 1. However, even if the Plaintiff purchased the building and appurtenant land from Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff purchased KRW 6.17,99,00,000 from Nonparty 1, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff made a false accounting as if there had been deposit assets of KRW 6.54,00,000 in the process of pretending to have purchased the building and appurtenant land in KRW 6.5,40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

(5) Non-Inclusion of the disposal loss on the display board of the New Ireland department store in deductible expenses.

After receiving an order from the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office to remove the electronic sign board on the New Village Sclar located on the New Village Sclar on September 8, 2000, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Multilater Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dawon Micro”) to sell it to 8,00,000 won (including value-added tax) on the premise of the removal of the electronic sign board on the New Village located on the New Village located on the New Village Sclar located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Nowon-gu, Mapo-gu, Seoul, and then included the disposal loss amount of KRW 865,691,173 in the deductible expenses in the deductible expenses in 200. The Defendant did not remove the electronic sign board on the New Village as of February 8, 2001. The Plaintiff did not receive the purchase price, thus, deemed that the time to revert the profit and loss did not arrive.

(6) Exclusion of excess amount of entertainment expenses from deductible expenses

In the year 199 and 2000, the Plaintiff disbursed the welfare expenses of employees and included them in the calculation of losses. The Defendant considered it as entertainment expenses and excluded the total amount of KRW 46,511,984 from the deductible expenses.

(7) Denial of the input tax credit under the tax invoice after the time of supply for the service expires

The Plaintiff entered into a contract on the operation of the electronic displays installed on the new model roof in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Mapo-gu (hereinafter “Saeongcom”) with Sasung (hereinafter “Aesung”) which comprehensively takes over Asung advertising business (hereinafter “Aesung advertising”), and agreed to pay KRW 42,00,000 per month for services. Although services were provided from Aesung advertising to June 1 through June 30 of the same year, the Plaintiff received a purchase tax invoice on July 31 of the same year, and received deduction by reporting the tax period as the input tax amount at the time of the preliminary return of the second half-year return of the value-added tax in 1998. However, services were provided from Sejongcom on February 1, 200 through June 30 of the same year, and on July 24 of the same year, the Defendant reported the purchase tax invoice to the purchaser on July 24 of the same year, and received the tax invoice differently from the above preliminary return of the input tax amount for the same year.

(8) Addition of the cost of use of the medium for DNA molding and denial of the deduction of the cost of purchase.

The Defendant issued only sales tax invoices amounting to KRW 8,109,613,91, and omitted sales tax invoices amounting to KRW 2,078,550,90,905 on the ground that the Plaintiff received false purchase tax invoices amounting to KRW 220,127,269 from the DNA mold and received false input tax invoices amounting to KRW 220,127,269 on the ground that the Plaintiff received false input tax invoices amounting to KRW 10,188,164,816, and denied input tax deduction on the false input tax amount.

【No dispute over evidence】 Evidence Nos. 1 through 10, Eul 1 through 4, Eul 5-1 and 2, Eul 6, Eul 7, 8, and 9-1 and 2, and Eul 10-6

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

(a) Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

B. The portion of the wrongful calculation of the claim for the user fee of media against the DNA molded and unrecovered long-term.

(1) The parties' assertion

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

1) Since March 198, 1998, the Dred’s failure to pay rent of KRW 428,00,000 per month to the lessee company, the financial situation and the balance of management have deteriorated, and as a result of the IMF foreign exchange crisis, the advertisement revenue was rapidly reduced. In such a situation, in a case where the Plaintiff collects the media user fee claim against Dred’s failure, the Plaintiff, who jointly and severally guaranteed the Dred’s obligation to pay the lease fee, bears the jointly and severally guaranteed obligation, and the Plaintiff’s financial situation is likely to rapidly deteriorate. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s failure to recover the media user fee claim against Dred’s failure to recover the Dred’s failure is an economic rationality, and is not subject to the avoidance of wrongful calculation and calculation.

2) The Defendant calculated the weighted average collection period, taking into account the excessive credit account of the amount of the Plaintiff’s credit account receivable collected based on the average collection period of the Plaintiff’s transaction partners other than Dred Dogred, and calculated the weighted average collection period based on the average collection period of the Plaintiff’s transaction partners. The Defendant calculated the weighted average collection period by multiplying the collection period by the collection period of the Dd Dogred, which exceeds the weighted average collection period, and calculated the recognized interest rate by multiplying the collection period. The Defendant’s transaction amount is high, and the collection period was continuously and repeatedly reduced compared to the actual transaction amount. The calculation method of calculating the interest rate by multiplying the number of the period of the Plaintiff’s transaction by the recognized interest rate was nonexistent. Since Dgred Dogred’s bill was endorsed and transferred by the Plaintiff, it was due to the advertiser’s delayed collection of the Plaintiff’s bill payment, and thus, the Defendant’s calculation of unlawful and unjust interest is not considered.

(B) Defendant’s assertion

1) Although the Plaintiff was able to succeed to the status of Lesoracom in light of the business size and financing capacity of the Dred Dogred, it was jointly and severally guaranteed by the lessee for the Dred Dogred, and the Plaintiff was able to pay rent of KRW 00 million in the number of years in 198 and 1999 due to the Plaintiff’s delayed or de facto neglecting the collection of the media user fee claims. This was possible because the Plaintiff and Dred Dog Dog Dog Dod Dod Dodd Dod Dodd Dod Dodd Dodd Dod was specially related. Therefore, the Plaintiff asserted that the claim for the media user fee was not recovered because it was a joint and several surety for the lease debt due to the Plaintiff’s specially related party. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that economic rationality exists.

2) The Defendant calculated the recognized interest rate in a lawful and reasonable manner in accordance with Article 52 and relevant subordinate regulations of the Corporate Tax Act.

(2) Facts of recognition

(A) On December 3, 1996, the Plaintiff agreed to enter into the instant partnership agreement with Leremanacom as follows.

○ The Plaintiff et al. shall establish and operate a DNA framework line with the joint investment of the Plaintiff et al., and the share in the shares of the DNA framework line shall be 57.5 percent, and Leracom shall be 42.5 percent (Articles 1 and 2).

○ At the time of the instant trade agreement, the Plaintiff, etc. entrusted the sales of the advertisement to the Dreced Doard, and allocated to the Plaintiff, etc. an amount excluding the advertising agency fee among the amount of the advertising sales of Dred Dod Dod Dod Dod Dodd Dod Dodd Dod

○ At the time of the instant trade agreement, the darddroids bears the advertising right fees (fees, electricity charges) for the electric display boards of the Pauri Building, the Bupyeong Urban Fladr, the Bupyeong Dogwon Building, the offset tri-dong building, the Seongdong Dog-dong Building, the darg Dog-dong Dog-dong Dog Building, and the Yeongdeungpo Dogglarg-si Doglarg Building, among the electric display boards (Article 7).

(B) On January 3, 1997, pursuant to the instant trade agreement, a DNA molding was established. On the same day, the DNA molding entered into a contract with the Plaintiff, etc. for the use of the broadcast media with the Plaintiff, etc., and agreed as follows.

○ The use of the visual broadcast is subject to 19 electronic displays at the time of conclusion of the instant trade agreement (Article 2).

○ The Plaintiff, etc. shall transfer an advertising contract concluded as of January 3, 1997 to the Digital Dogreline (Article 3).

00,000 won or more per month for the following media shall be paid to the Plaintiff by the 15th day of the following month (Article 4(1), (3), and Article 6). Since 198, the DNA mold shall ensure that the Plaintiff is not less than KRW 1,150,000 per month (Article 4(1), (3), and (6).

(unit: million won)

12 34 5 6 7 8 8 10 12 per month contained in the main sentence, and 690 747.5 805 805 962.5 9206 May 25, 1006 1035 106.75 11507 5 1207

The advertising contract that the plaintiff et al. entered into with the advertiser shall be signed with the advertiser by taking over the DNA molded Doide and concluding the contract for the change of the contractor. For the advertising articles for which the contract for the change of the contractor has not been concluded, a tax invoice shall be issued in the name of the plaintiff et al., and the DNA molded Doide Doide Doide Doide is

(C) On February 26, 1998, after the Plaintiff’s failure to pay Lered Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff and Dred Co., Ltd paid 57.5% of the total sales to the Plaintiff as a media user fee. The Plaintiff, along with the tax invoice as of the end of each month, claimed for the media user fee to the Dred Co., Ltd, and the Dred Co., Ltd entered into a contract for the use of the Cred Co., Ltd to pay the media user fee by the 10th of the following month.

(D) As of September 30, 1997, the obligation to use a medium that was not paid to the Plaintiff, among the prohibited money, by using the electronic display boards of the Plaintiff, etc., from January 3, 1997, the amount of the royalty was KRW 2,707,818,300 as of September 30, 1997; KRW 8,376,927,864 as of September 30, 1998; KRW 13,034,506,367 as of September 30, 1999; KRW 17,62,668,753 as of September 30, 200.

(E) After endorsement on a bill issued and delivered by the advertiser, the Digital Signature paid the Plaintiff the media user fee in the manner that the bill was delivered to the Plaintiff by means of endorsement or payment of cash from the advertisers, and the bill delivered from the advertisers came due after several months after the date of the ordinary advertisement. Darging Dogred did not issue the bill, etc. in its name in order to pay the Plaintiff the media user fee, and did not require the Plaintiff to do so.

(F) From the end of 197 to the end of 2000 of the year 200, the average collection period that the Plaintiff collected from the credit account with respect to the customer who had half of the Plaintiff’s sales from among the transaction partners other than the Digital Doide was the average 64 days as of September 1997, average 78 days as of September 1998, average 102 days as of September 1999, average 11 days as of September 1999, and average 11 days as of September 2, 2000, but from the average 58 days to 914 days as of September 200, the amount exceeded 836 days compared to the average collection period.

(G) The Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff did not recover credit sales for a long time with respect to the DNA molded ship; and (b) deemed the provisional payment amount for a related party; and (c) included the recognized interest rate and the calculation method as follows.

The selection of ○ Customer: the transaction amount was relatively high, repeated, and continuous transaction. These transaction parties account for 34.8% of the Plaintiff’s total sales amount, 1997, 38% of the Plaintiff’s total sales amount, 1998, 43.7% of the 1999, 35.5% of the Plaintiff’s sales amount, 200, 47.2% of the Plaintiff’s sales amount, 1997, 1998, 53.4% of the Plaintiff’s sales amount, 1998, 53.5% of the 1999, and 42.3% of the 2000.

The calculation of the average collection period: It shall be deemed that the credit account was first recovered, and if the credit account was recovered over several business years, it shall be deemed that the credit account was recovered in the year in which the credit account was incurred, which is the highest time of recovery. The weighted average collection period was calculated by reflecting the size of the recovered amount in accordance with the weighted average collection period ± [the weighted average collection period ± (total collection period) ±

The calculation of the collection period for the DNA molded Dozboard: first of all, the credit account was collected, based on September 30, 200, and the cash and cash valuables were paid to the Plaintiff, and the bill was calculated based on the due date.

00. Calculation of the excessive recovery period: The excess recovery period = the recovery period for DNA copid diacopid - The weighted average recovery period.

Calculation of drop number by 00 period: Period of excessive recovery ¡¿ amount to be collected.

○ recognized interest: A total of drop number by period ¡¿ recognized interest rate;

(Recognition Interest Rate: 50% of December 12, 1997

January 1, 1998 and June 20, 1998

July 1998 through September 17, 1998

October 1998 and June 13, 1999

July 1, 1999 and September 11, 200

[Evidence A] Evidence Nos. 16, 9-1, 2, 15-2

(3) Determination

According to the above facts, while the Plaintiff was to have recovered the claim for the media user fee from the Dred’s Dogred’s Dogred’s Dogred’s Dogred’s Dogred’s Dogred’s Dogred’s 15th day of the following month, the Plaintiff did not recover the claim exceeding the average collection period against other transaction parties. As such, the Defendant’s act of wrongful calculation as to the claim for the long-term unclaimed media user fee and as the provisional payment for related parties’ Dogred’s Dogred’s Dogred’

The Plaintiff asserts that the failure to collect the claim for the royalty of the media for the DNA molded Dogre Dogd was due to the fact that the financial situation of the Plaintiff would ultimately deteriorate if the Dgre Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dog Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd dd Dogd Dogd Dogd d's Dogd Dogd d's Dogd Dogd d's d Dogd Dogd d.

C. Part concerning non-Inclusion of expenses in deductible expenses, such as electricity charges, rent, maintenance expenses, etc. on electronic display boards owned by a DNA molding boat

(1) The parties' assertion

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

In accordance with the instant business agreement, the Plaintiff shared electronic displays in accordance with the instant trade agreement, and as the Dogracom succeeded to the status of the electronic sign board operation agreement, the Plaintiff became in the same business relationship with the Dograd Dograd Dog Dograd Dog Dog. Moreover, the Plaintiff acquired the right to lease, the right to permit, etc. of the electronic sign boards of Songcheon Building and the Lelto Dog Building from Dograd Dog Dograd Dog Dog Dog Dograd Dog Dog Dog Dogd Dog Dog Dogd Dog, and agreed that the Plaintiff shall hold the ownership and the right to operate the electronic sign board in relation to the operation of the Dogra Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog

(B) Defendant’s assertion

From October 198 to September 200, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 528,804,710,00, including the electric sign boards of Songcheon Building, the subdivision center, and the electric sign board boards of LAB building, and electricity charges. These electric sign boards are owned by the Dred and Dred, and there is no legal or contractual reason to pay the rent and electricity charges to the Plaintiff. Next, the Plaintiff entered into an electronic sign board maintenance contract with the future Microd and Microd and Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “UBS”) around the end of 1998, and then paid a total of KRW 1,115,383,00,00 from October 199 to September 20, 20, including the cost of maintenance and repair in lieu of the Plaintiff’s 08,00,000,000 won, which is considered to be owned by the Dred and Dred, and the Plaintiff was considered to be owned by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Corporate Tax Act.

(2) Facts of recognition

(A) The Plaintiff paid 494,844,80 won in total and 33,959,910 won in the electronic displays of Songcheon Building, an electronic sign board of the subdivision center, and a ELtool Building (the value-added tax is separated; hereinafter the same shall apply) as follows. The electronic sign board of Songcheon Building, a subdivision center, and a ELtool Building was succeeded to the status of the lessee of the Dr. However, among them, the electric sign board of Songcheon Building was transferred by the Plaintiff on October 1, 199; and the electric sign board of the subdivision center was transferred by the Plaintiff on November 30, 199.

○ Rent: 40,000,000 on October 27, 1998

From November 30, 1998 to December 30, 1999 8,000,000 won each month; and

Total 152,000,000

○ The date of change of ownership: the ownership is transferred to the Plaintiff on October 1, 1999.

○ Fee: Four times per month from October 1, 1998 to January 18, 1999 7,711,200 won; and

7,500,000 won each month from February 1, 1999 to October 27, 1999 nine times

Total 98,344,800 won

○ Electricity rates: 33,959,910 won from October 9, 1998 to November 18, 1999

○ Date of change of ownership: Ownership is transferred to the Plaintiff on November 30, 1999.

○ Rent: 244,500,000 won in total on October 27, 1998 and September 30, 2000

(B) Around October 1998, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for maintenance and repair with the window system and the electronic sign board around December 1998. The 21 electronic sign boards subject to maintenance and repair concluded with the future microphones included in the Songcheon Building, Mapoland hotel, Lato-to-be hotel, Busan Samsung Building, Yato-dong Gacheon-dong Gaol Building, Mapo-dong Gapo-dong Gapo-dong Gapo-dong Gapo-dong Gapo-dong Gapo-dong, Gapo-si, Seoul Building, Southern (Seoul), Southern Sector-Subdivision-si Gapo-si, Busan Metropolitan Government Gapo-si, Busan Metropolitan Government Gapo-si, Busan Metropolitan Government Gapo-si, and 11 electronic sign boards of offset three buildings, and the 17 electronic sign boards or 20 electronic sign boards at the location of the lessee of the Domo-building, Samsung Gamo-dong Gamo-si Gato-dong, Busan building, Samsung-dong building, Samsung 7, Busan building, Busan.

The Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 432,00,000 from November 1, 1998 to September 1, 1999 as an electronic sign board repair; KRW 326,00,000 in total from October 1, 1999 to June 200; KRW 157,034,000 in total from October 1, 1998 to September 1999; and KRW 128,349,00 in total from October 1, 199 to June 200 in the amount of maintenance and repair costs; KRW 1,115,383,00 in the amount of the electronic sign board repair costs; KRW 507,507 in the amount of the proportional distribution for the amount of the electronic sign board maintenance and repair costs for the above period.

(C) On May 16, 1996, the Plaintiff concluded an electronic sign board operation agreement with Lehovahioncom, and agreed that Lehovahioncom bears the expenses incurred in the installation and manufacture of the electronic sign board, the total amount of lease repayment expenses, and the rent, and the lease charges in the event that Lehovahioncom delays the lease fees, the Plaintiff shall revert the ownership of the electronic sign board to the Plaintiff.

【Evidence Evidence Nos. 5, 10-1 through 6】

(3) Determination

Article 27 subparag. 2 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 50 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 17(2)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act “the expenditure deemed not directly related to the corporation’s business or business” refer to the maintenance expenses, management expenses, and user fees and other related expenses of the place, building, things, etc. used by other persons without direct use by the corporation. In this case, the Plaintiff’s operation of the electric sign board is not the same as before the Plaintiff succeeds to the status of the user of the said electric sign board agreement, since the Plaintiff’s operation of the electric sign board was not related to the installation of the electric sign board frame, such as Songcheon Building, Mapo, Busan Metropolitan City Building, Gamo-dong Building, Gacheoncheon-dong Building, Mocheon-dong Building, Modern-ro 1, Nam-ro, Seoul Metropolitan City Sector-Subdivision, Busan Metropolitan City Steering-si, Mancheon-do, and Samyang-do Building, which was not directly related to the aforementioned installation of the electric sign board frame between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

However, according to the statements in Eul evidence 10-6, since the plaintiff can recognize the fact that he received the ownership of the electric sign board of the Songcheon Building from the Drick Dod on October 1, 1999, the rent necessary for the operation of the electric sign board of the Songcheon Building after October 1, 199 shall be borne by the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's disposition of imposition of KRW 24,00,000 on the sum of the rent for three months from October 1, 199 to December 30 of the same year is illegal, so the plaintiff's assertion is without merit within the above scope of recognition and the remainder is without merit.

D. The excess amount exceeding the scope of depreciation related to the acquisition by transfer from Nonparty 1, the non-deductible expenses of paid interest, and the part concerning the inclusion in gross income of the omission of the compensation for defects in electronic displays received by Leradecom

(1) The parties' assertion

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff only paid the lease fee under the lease agreement with the industrial lease, but did not acquire the right to permit electronic display from the non-party 1. It is irrelevant to the Plaintiff to the fact that Lehincom paid KRW 3.62 million to the non-party 1.

2) On September 5, 1997, the Plaintiff purchased 5.4 billion won from Nonparty 1, and agreed to take over the loan obligations to financial institutions, such as the loan obligations to the national mutual savings and finance company of Nonparty 1, 7.46 million won in lieu of the payment for the purchase price. After that agreement, Nonparty 1 requested the Plaintiff to take over the loan obligations to the national mutual savings and finance company of Nonparty 1, 1.4 billion won in cash when requesting the Plaintiff to pay the loan obligations to the national mutual savings and finance company of KRW 1.4 billion, the Plaintiff received the loan from Nonparty 1 on October 1, 1997. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not receive the electric sign board defect compensation from Lera’s mutual savings and finance company.

(B) Defendant’s assertion

1) Of the lease agreements entered into with the Plaintiff under an industrial lease, KRW 3.62 million, the Plaintiff acquired, in its processed amount, the right to lease and electric display boards, the right to lease and electric display boards, and the right to lease and electric display boards, from Nonparty 1.

2) The Plaintiff purchased 6.17 billion won, not 5.9 billion won, from Nonparty 1, but 6.4 billion won, and received accounting as if there were deposit assets of KRW 65.4 million in order to reduce the purchase price as KRW 5.4 billion. Thereafter, on December 26, 1997, the Plaintiff received 65.4 million for electronic display board defect compensation from Leraricom, and entered the accounts of the amount received from Nonparty 1 as money, and omitted from the gross income.

(2) Facts of recognition

(A) On July 24, 1997, Non-party 1 concluded a sales contract with Lehovahovah 2 (each lot number omitted), which was to sell in total 9.82,5 billion won the permission right to electronic display board in order for Lehovah 1 to Leh Gah Gah Gah 2 (each lot number omitted), and the permission right to electronic display board in order to sell in total 9.82,5 million won to Leh Gah Gah Gah Gah Gah Gah Gah kh Gah kh kh Gah kh kh kh kh kh kh kh kh kh

(B) On September 5, 1997, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Nonparty 1 and its appurtenant land, and to purchase the right to permit electric sign board of the sub-building and the right to permit electric sign board of the sub-committee of the sub-building with Nonparty 1 to purchase KRW 9.82,5 million, and agreed to purchase the purchase price of the sub-building and its appurtenant land as KRW 6.17,99 million, and KRW 3.62,66 million, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 1.4 billion, in lieu of the payment of the purchase price, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1.5 billion to Nonparty 1’s sub-owned mutual savings and finance companies and KRW 1.5 billion, KRW 1.5 billion, KRW 295,000,000, KRW 1.677 billion,000,0000,000,0000,000 won, and KRW 1.67,000,000,00.

(C) However, on September 5, 1997, the Plaintiff drafted a sales contract for Nonparty 1 and the sub-party 1 and the land annexed to the sub-party 1, and entered the sales price in KRW 5.4 billion ( KRW 1.255 million in the building, KRW 4.155 million in the land), and the value-added tax for the building in KRW 12.5 million in the value-added tax.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff agreed to take over KRW 6,177,90,000,00 from Nonparty 1’s obligation to refund deposit money for lease on a deposit basis, KRW 1.79 billion, KRW 3,000,000,000, KRW 1.479,000,000,000 for loans to the National Mutual Saving and Finance Company, and KRW 6,179,90,000,000 for loans to the National Mutual Saving and Finance Company, instead of paying the purchase money for Nonparty 1 and the sub-party 1, and the sub-party 1, and the sub-party 1, and the non-party 1,79,000,000,000 for loans to the Non-party 1,65,000,000,000 for loans to the Non-party 1,65,000,000 won for accounting purposes, but the Plaintiff’s deposit account was not deposited in KRW 16,81,56,000,00,000.

(D) On September 5, 1997, the Plaintiff’s representative director, Nonparty 2 and planning directors planned to pay KRW 3.62 million in balance of the purchase price to be paid in cash to Nonparty 1 from industrial leasing, in collusion with Nonparty 4, who is the representative director of Leramancom, to receive KRW 5.2 billion in total, but the Plaintiff was to receive KRW 8.3 billion in total from Leraincom, and submitted a false estimate and false tax invoice each time to the Industrial Lease; on November 21, 1997, 206, 3,71,675,460, and the lease period from November 21, 207, 207, 3.6 billion in total; on May 25, 207, 207, 197, 3.6.7 billion in total, 4.7 billion in supply; and on November 25, 207, 297, the lease period from November 21, 2097.

Meanwhile, on September 5, 1997, Nonparty 4 received a total of KRW 8.83 billion, including KRW 3.62 million on September 5, 1997, KRW 3.438 million on August 8, 199, KRW 7.726 million on November 20, 197, KRW 1.83 billion on December 19, 199, and delivered it to the Plaintiff. Of the money, Nonparty 4 returned to the Plaintiff the down payment and intermediate payment of KRW 1.8 billion on December 19, 197, KRW 1.8 billion on the deposit and intermediate payment of the sales contract released earlier, and paid KRW 1.8 billion to Nonparty 1.8 billion on the part of Nonparty 1.

On November 14, 2000, Nonparty 2, 3, and 4 was convicted of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) by the Seoul Northern District Court (Seoul Northern District Court) on November 14, 200.

(E) The Plaintiff paid 177,309,131 won in the year 1998, 188,604,439 won in the year 199, and 220,737,997 won in the year 2000,586,651,567 with the lease fee for the electronic display boards and the tril interest building in the virtue building in the industrial lease, and then included it in the deductible expenses at the time of filing the corporate tax return.

(F) Meanwhile, on the other hand, on December 26, 1997, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 650 million from Lehovah’scom (this money seems to be part of the lease funds paid to Nonparty 4) in the Plaintiff’s bank account, but on October 1, 1997, the Plaintiff omitted the money received from Lehovah’scom from his accounting to settle the amount of KRW 654 million, as if the deposit was made with a false deposit account, and then entered this money into accounting as if the money was deposited from Non-Party 1 on October 1, 1997.

【Evidence 11-13】

(3) Determination

According to the above facts, since the plaintiff purchased the right to permission for electronic display boards and the right to permission for electronic display boards of the sub-division center in order to acquire fixed assets from the non-party 1, 3.62 million won by deceiving industrial risks, the part corresponding to the principal of the above money shall be deemed to be subject to depreciation as the money paid for acquiring fixed assets. Since the remaining part corresponding to the interest paid shall be deemed to be an immediate depreciation of the principal amount, it shall be deemed that the principal amount was immediately depreciated, and the portion corresponding to the interest paid in excess of the scope of depreciation should be deemed to be deducted from deductible expenses, and it shall be legitimate to exclude the portion corresponding to the interest paid in excess corporation from deductible expenses, and it shall be deemed to be legitimate to include the amount corresponding to the interest paid in excess corporation from the non-party 1,65 million won. Furthermore, the plaintiff's above assertion shall

E. Part concerning non-deductible of the disposal loss by the electronic display board of the New Village Ireland

(1) The parties' assertion

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

Article 68(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the gross income and deductible expenses shall be deemed to have been determined at the time of delivery of the relevant asset before the settlement of the price. On September 8, 2000, the Plaintiff sold the electronic sign board to Dawon Micro, and the Plaintiff agreed to deliver the specifications and design drawings of the electronic sign board, management reports, work process related to removal, and final estimate to Dawon Micro, and take over the electronic sign board at the time of the first inspection of the electronic sign board by Dawon Micro, and the Plaintiff delivered the said documents to Dawon Micro on September 30, 200 and inspected the electronic sign board of the Dawon Islands by Dawon, and the Plaintiff delivered the said documents to Dawon in the first place on September 30, 200. Therefore, the time of confirmation of the Plaintiff’s deductible expenses is September 30, 200.

(B) Defendant’s assertion

Since the removal of the electronic sign board and the settlement of the price did not have been made until the date of the Defendant’s tax investigation, the gain or loss from the transfer of the electronic sign board cannot be considered to have been determined

(2) Facts of recognition

(A) After having been ordered to remove an electronic sign board by the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on September 8, 200, the Plaintiff entered into the following contract on the sales of the electronic sign board with Dawon micro on September 8, 200.

○ It is intended to bear the cost of removal and restoration of the electronic sign board removal works and purchase the electronic sign board which is scheduled to be removed or proposed to be removed from the Plaintiff in advance (Article I).

○ The Plaintiff provides multi-won micros with the specifications and design drawings of the electronic sign board, the management report before 2 to 3 months prior to the suspension of the electronic sign board, and the work process and final estimate presented by the company taking charge of the removal of the electronic sign board. Based on this, the Plaintiff’s electronic sign board of the Plaintiff at the time of the first inspection of the contract (Article 3).

The ○○ Microro shall pay KRW 88,000,000 (including value-added tax) for the total construction cost, which is the purchase price, to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff shall pay to the removed construction company after receiving it (Article 5).

(B) On September 8, 200, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction work with the Mine Planning Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “PY”) to remove the electronic displays of the New Village Co., Ltd. from the price of KRW 88,000,000 (including value-added tax) until October 24, 2000. An advance payment of KRW 16,000,000 on September 20, 200, an intermediate payment of KRW 32,000,000,000 on October 2, 200, to pay the remainder of KRW 32,000 at the time of completion of the removal work.

(C) However, after the conclusion of the above contract, multi-won Micros did not pay the purchase price to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not pay advance payment to the Mine Planning, and the Plaintiff submitted a letter of cooperation to the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul Metropolitan Government, on March 23, 2001, to the head of Mapo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government from March 26, 2001 to April 30, 201.

(D) The Plaintiff reported the corporate tax in 2000 and included the amount of loss in deductible expenses, which was incurred by the sale of the electronic display board in the New Village, in the loss of KRW 865,691,173.

[Evidence A] 10 Evidence Nos. 12, 12-3

(3) Determination

Article 40 of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the business year to which the profit and loss belongs shall be the business year which includes the date on which the profit and loss is finalized. Article 68(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the period to which the profit and loss accrue shall be attributed shall be the business year which includes the date on which the price is settled: Provided, That Article 68(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the period to which the profit and loss accrue from the transfer of commodities, products, and other assets (including fixed assets, investment assets, and real estate which are inventory assets) shall be the business year which includes the date on which the profit and loss accrues: Provided, That where the transfer of ownership is registered prior to the settlement of the price, the transfer of the relevant assets is delivered, or the other party

However, in the instant case, it is evident that the Plaintiff’s sale of the electronic displays in New Villageland to Multilaters at KRW 80,00,00 (excluding value-added tax) is premised on removal [if it was to be used continuously without being removed, 945,691,173 won (in the event that it was not used continuously without being removed, 865,691,173 won + sales price of KRW 80,000)] would not sell the electronic displays equivalent to KRW 80,000]. The Plaintiff’s disposal loss is not caused by the sale of the electronic displays in New Village, but caused by removal. Accordingly, in order to cause the Plaintiff to have suffered a loss due to the removal of the electric displays in New Village, it is necessary that the Plaintiff should deliver the new electronic displays to Multilaters or Mine planning for removal to the Plaintiff, or that the Plaintiff did not claim for the loss as of March 20, 2015.

F. The excessive portion of entertainment expenses not included in deductible expenses

(1) The parties' assertion

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff's employees are 157 workers as of the end of 1999, and they are paid money of KRW 100,000 per capita in 199,00 won in 190,000 as welfare expenses, such as meal expenses or meeting expenses, to boost the morale of employees.

(B) Defendant’s assertion

The defendant reported the plaintiff's account transfer table and recognized 46,511,984 won as entertainment expenses, not the welfare expenses of employees.

(2) Facts of recognition

(A) From October 1, 1998 to September 30, 1999, the Plaintiff disbursed 4,656,416 won in total, including 13,856,036 won, and 30,80,380 won in total, from October 1, 1999 to September 30, 200, for university satellite course expenses, welfare expenses, distance education expenses, e-commerce expenses, e-commerce expenses, and item business expenses.

(B) However, the expenditure source of the said money stated that, regardless of doctoral degree, most restaurants such as tea shopping were entertainment expenses for the actual purpose of disbursement, and that the Plaintiff’s internal document was also disbursed as entertainment expenses.

【Evidence】 13-1 to 4

(3) Determination

According to the above facts, since the plaintiff's total amount of 4,656,416 won from October 1, 1998 to September 30, 200 is recognized as entertainment expenses, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(g) The rejection of the input tax deduction under the tax invoice after the time of supply for the service expires;

(1) The parties' assertion

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the operation of the electronic display board with the ASEAN, the Plaintiff did not pay the advertising fee (the advertising right fee) from April 1, 1998 to June 30 of the same year due to differences in opinions with the ASEAN advertising. The Plaintiff paid the advertising fee at KRW 42,00,000 on July 31, 1998 and received the tax invoice by paying it. The Plaintiff did not pay the service fee from February 1, 200 to June 30 of the same year, on the grounds of differences in opinions with the ASEANcom comprehensively taken over the ASEAN advertising business, and received the tax invoice after paying it. Accordingly, the final determination of the time of supply for the ASEAN advertising and the ASEANcom becomes final and conclusive is not a different tax invoice after the lapse of the time of supply for the services received on July 31, 1998.

(B) Defendant’s assertion

According to the electronic sign board operation contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the Sejongcom, the service amount and the timing are already specified, so it cannot be said that the time of supply for the service is determined after the supply of the service due to differences in opinions on advertising right fees.

(2) Facts of recognition

(A) On March 28, 1997, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the operation of the electric sign board with a new field of art with a new field of art, and the Plaintiff agreed to provide the Plaintiff with an advertising service on behalf of operating the electric sign board with a new field of art. The Plaintiff agreed to pay the amount of KRW 42,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) monthly at its service cost. The Plaintiff was provided with an advertising agency service from Asung advertisements for three months from April 1, 1998 to June 30 of the same year.

(B) On July 31, 200, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Sejong Amcom, which comprehensively acquired the business of sexual advertising, and agreed to pay the amount of KRW 35,000,000 per month as the service cost. From February 1, 2000 to June 30 of the same year, the Plaintiff received advertising agency services from Sejong Amcom for four months.

(C) However, the Plaintiff issued and delivered purchase tax invoices worth KRW 126,00,000 in total as of July 31, 1998, and received the deduction by reporting it as the input tax amount at the time of the preliminary return of the value-added tax for the second period of the year 1998. The Plaintiff received the purchase tax invoices worth KRW 175,00,000 in total from Sejongcom as of July 24, 200, and received the deduction by reporting it as the input tax amount at the time of the preliminary return of the value-added tax for the second period of the year 200.

【No Evidence-based dispute, No. 14-1/2

(3) Determination

According to the above facts, it is legitimate that the purchase tax invoice issued and delivered by the Plaintiff from Asung Advertising and Sejongcom enters the time different from the time when the service is actually supplied, and it is legitimate that the Defendant did not deduct the input tax amount equivalent to the said time from the output tax amount. The Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

(h) Addition of the user fee for the use of a medium against the DNA molded and Domind, and denial of the deduction of the processed purchase tax amount;

Part

(1) The parties' assertion

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, in principle, decided to succeed to the advertising contract that was concluded by the Plaintiff while establishing the Digital Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Do, but the advertising contract was not succeeded in case of a short-term contract unnecessary. In this case, the Plaintiff issued and issued a tax invoice to the advertiser in the name of the Plaintiff. Moreover, if the advertising contract was not succeeded to the Digital Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd, the advertising service was not provided by the Plaintiff, but provided by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff was not entitled to a tax invoice for the use fee of KRW 2,078,805.

(B) Defendant’s assertion

Dogred, regardless of whether the advertising contract was succeeded, provided advertising services to the advertisements where the advertising contract was entered into in the Plaintiff’s name. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff could claim the media user fee against the DNAgred, the Plaintiff arbitrarily offsets KRW 2,078,850,905 and KRW 220,127.269, which received false purchase tax invoices for the purpose of settlement from the DNAgred, and issued sales tax invoices only for the remaining amount.

(2) Facts of recognition

(A) According to the electronic sign board use contract concluded between the Plaintiff, etc. and the advertiser, etc., the advertising contract concluded between the Plaintiff, etc. and the advertiser is stipulated in the Digital sign board use contract (Article 5(1)). As to the advertising articles for which the contract to change the contract was not concluded, the Plaintiff, etc. issued a tax invoice in the name of the Plaintiff, etc. for the advertising articles under which the contract to change the contract was not concluded, and settled by the fifth day of the following month with the Plaintiff, etc. (Article 5(2)).

(B) In accordance with a contract using the electronic sign board, the Digital Advertisement did not modify the subject of the contract because the advertiser did not respond to the change of the subject of the contract for some advertisements on the grounds that the contract period is short or there is no particular defect in performing the contract, as to some advertisements.

(C) However, in order to display the advertisement of the electronic display board, the Dreged Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd d Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd Dogd d Dogd

(D) On the other hand, the Dreged Dogd offered advertising services to a contract that does not change the subject of the contract, and issued and delivered a tax invoice in the name of the Plaintiff by collecting advertising fees.

(E) In 197, the Plaintiff acquired the claim for the royalty of KRW 10,188,164,816 against the Dregreg Doc Doc Doc Doc Doc Doc Doc Doc Doc 1997, and only issued the sales tax invoice of KRW 8,109,613,91 among them to Dreg Doc Doc Doc Doc Doc Doc Doc Doc Doc Doc Doc Doc Doc Doc Doc Doc Doc Doc Doc Doc d Doc Doc d Doc Doc Doc dd Doc Doc Doc d Doc Doc Doc d Doc Doc d Doc

(F) As to the sales tax invoice 2,447,172,724 won issued under the name of the Plaintiff and the Dregrads and the sales tax invoice 2,47,172,724 won, the Plaintiff settled the media user fee in accordance with the Dregrads settlement table prepared by the Dregrads. According to the settlement table, the Plaintiff paid 148,494,550 won to Dregrads as advertising agency fees, and deducted the amount from the processed tax invoice 220,127,269 won. After deducting the processed tax invoice 220,127,269 won, the remaining amount of 2,078,550,905 won was the sales amount of the media user fee for the Dregrads and the Plaintiff’s Dregrads

【Evidence Evidence Nos. 27, No. 15-1, 2, and 3, and No. 16-5

(3) Determination

First of all, according to the above facts, it is clear that purchase tax invoices equivalent to KRW 220,127,269 are false tax invoices issued without actually providing services.

Then, as seen earlier, in light of the principle of value-added tax system, which adopts the imposition principle by transaction stage as to the Plaintiff’s sales amount and the content of settling each party’s sales amount and media user fee, regardless of the change of the advertising entity, the DNA mold Dozd Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dodd Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod d.

(i) Calculation of the corporate tax amount for the year 2000.

The calculation of the corporate tax amount for the year 200 by deducting 24,00,000 won included in the calculation of earnings while determining and notifying the corporate tax amount for the year 200 shall be as follows:

3,675, 274, 275, 278, 297, 275, 364, 275, 368, 297, 275, 368, 297, 297, 368, 297, 297, 367, 368, 297, 365, 297, 367, 297, 468, 297, 365, 297, 367, 297, 365, 297, 365, 297, 365, 297, 297, 365, 297, 365, 297, 297, 364, 297, 365, 297, 298, 2965, 2962, 2974

○ Additional Tax for Underreporting:

Total under-reported income 4,836,181,319 won (8,126,916,422 - 3,290,735,103)

General underreported amount 405,815,470 won [279,735,431 ¡À3,661,118) ±4,836,181,319];

Additional tax for underreporting 2,263,536,598 】 (405,815,470 ±8,126,916,422) 】 10 percent

= 11,302,911 won

4,430,365,849 [ [3,053,925,687 ¡À 3,33,661,118] of an unlawfully underreportedd amount] 4,430,36,181,319];

2,263,536,598 】 (4,430,365,849 ± 8,126,916,42) 】 20 percent

= 246,792,134 won

Total amount of penalty taxes for underreporting 258,095,045 won (11,302,911 + 246,792,134)

○○ Additional tax for unfaithful payment: (2,263,536,598- 909,405,828) x 244 days x 5/1000

= 165,203,953 won

○ Additional Tax on Non-performance of Voluntary Reporting and Payment: 16,034 won (term payment)

Therefore, the disposition imposing corporate tax in excess of KRW 1,777,413,734 of the corporate tax in 2000 imposed on the Plaintiff on September 1, 2001 is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Judge)