Article 20 of the former Corporate Tax Act, Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The following facts can be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) evidence Nos. 1 through 20; (c) evidence Nos. 1 through 3-8; and (d) witness testimony of the public-private partnership country.

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of construction and civil engineering works on February 18, 1982. ① On December 23, 1997, the Plaintiff: (a) on December 30, 1997, the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970, Dec. 30, 1998; hereinafter referred to as the “Decree”); (b) on December 30, 1997, the Plaintiff owned 358,382 shares issued on the ○○○ Day Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “○○ Day”) with an investor with a special relationship under each subparagraph of Article 46(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970, Dec. 30, 1998; hereinafter referred to as the “Decree”); (c) the sales interest of ○○○○ Co., Ltd. was sold in advance to ○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to the instant shares”).

B. (1) The Plaintiff received down payment of KRW 525,191,00 for each contract from 00,000 for the intermediate payment and the remainder, unlike the contents of the contract, and KRW 100,000 for the intermediate payment on April 29, 1998, and KRW 808,337,00 for the intermediate payment and the remainder on December 23, 1999, respectively, and KRW 358,382,00 for the remainder on December 31, 200; ② the balance of the outstanding amount which was not received from the non-party company with the settlement of the sales revenue and the purchase cost is 903,279,215, 100, 102,431, 218, 200, 2013, 313, 2018, 2013, 2013, 2013, 2015, 2013, 2018.316.3

(3) The defendant shall calculate 203.12. 203.17 to 36, 196, 30, 47.47, 196, 47, 297, 197, 467, 1967, 47, 1967, 30,47, 1967, 1967, 47,47, 1967, 1967, 196, 30,467, 1967, 197, 47, 1967, 1967, 196, 306, 196, 306, 47, 296, 306, 47, 197, 496, and 196, of the interest paid for the sale of shares to 25,306,47,496, and 197,3975,37,397,4

2. Determination on the lawfulness of each of the dispositions of this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① In order to improve the financial structure, the Plaintiff sold ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 2,90 won a share price of 2,290 won per share. On December 23, 1998, criminal cases against ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ were not closed, and the payment period for intermediate payment and outstanding payment of the instant shares was changed to December 23, 199. In light of the sales circumstance of the instant shares and the real value of the instant shares, the delayed payment of the outstanding shares does not constitute an economic rationality disregarding the economic rationality, and thus, the Plaintiff’s failure to collect the outstanding shares from the Nonparty Company does not constitute wrongful calculation.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 18-3 of the former Corporate Tax Act

Article 20 of the former Corporate Tax Act

Article 28 of the Corporate Tax Act

Corporate Tax Act Article 52

C. Determination

(1) As to the calculation of wrongful acts

Whether a certain act constitutes a wrongful calculation under the Corporate Tax Act shall be determined on the basis of whether the transaction lacks economic rationality in light of sound social norms and commercial practice, taking into account the overall circumstances of the transaction.

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du5494, Nov. 14, 2000

According to the above evidence, the plaintiff transferred the shares of this case to ○○○○ who is in a position of a person with a special relationship. (1) Unlike the initial agreement, the plaintiff extended the time of payment of intermediate payment for one year and one year, and delayed payment of the outstanding payment without any agreement as to interest payment. 358,382,00 won out of the outstanding balance is still in a state of recovery up to the present. (2) The plaintiff did not pay the outstanding amount as 903,279,215 won as of January 1, 200 as a result of settlement between the non-party company and the outstanding amount, and there was no reason to acknowledge the amount of interest interest interest accrued from the date of sale to ○○○○○○○ upon the increase in the outstanding amount, and there was no reason to recognize the amount of interest interest accrued from 2,342,583,413 won to ○○○○○○’s actual transaction with the above outstanding amount to 16,700,200 won.

(2) As to the exclusion of the interest paid in advance from deductible expenses

Article 18-3 (1) 3 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998) (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 199), and Article 43-2 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 28 (1) 4 (b) of the current Corporate Tax Act), “provisional payment paid without connection with the business,” include not only purely meaningful loans, but also bonds such as indemnity bonds (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du4068 of Mar. 11, 2003). If the outstanding amount is not collected within a considerable period of time without just cause, such outstanding amount shall be deemed as provisional payment. According to the above legal principle, it constitutes non-deductible payment. Accordingly, each of the instant dispositions of taxation in this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.