2. On September 1, 2016, the part of the Defendant’s disposition exceeding KRW 1,041,00,000 among the disposition of notice of change in income amount reverted to year 2015 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. Of the litigation costs, 7/8 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 197,002,330 (including additional tax) for the business year 2015 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2016 shall be revoked.

2. On September 1, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition of notification of change in income amount in KRW 1,059,816,852 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

A. The Plaintiff is established on November 6, 1995 and manufactures and installs CCTV cameras, electronic alarm devices, and ancillary equipment.

The head and sales business are running.

B. On December 28, 2015, the Plaintiff amended the articles of incorporation and the regulations on the payment of retirement allowances for executives in accordance with the resolution of a special general meeting of shareholders, and subsequently paid KRW 2.5 billion in total to ParkCC, a representative director, an interim settlement of retirement allowances following the conversion of annual salary system (hereinafter “Dispute retirement allowances”). Of these, KRW 1,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 00, Seoul, 00 ○○○○-dong, Seoul, the Plaintiff’s place of business, 5-20 * * 404, 405 (hereinafter referred to as “collective real estate”), 783,846,360,000 paid in cash under the name of ParkCC, KRW 182,405,360,000,000,000 paid to each of the parties to the retirement pension (hereinafter “OO's pension”).

(223,754,690 won was deducted as withholding taxes such as retirement income tax; hereinafter referred to as "interim settlement of retirement allowances in dispute").

C. As a result of the Plaintiff’s ex post facto verification of corporate tax for the 2015 business year, the Defendant denied interim settlement of the issue on the ground that ParkCC did not actually retire on December 28, 2015, and reserved the disposition of disposal of the said amount as KRW 225,153,640 (223,754,690 + 1,398,950), including retirement income tax and cash payment, KRW 783,846,360, 100,000,000 for retirement pension and variable pension, KRW 1,846,360,000,000 for 783,000,000,0000 won for retirement pension and variable pension and KRW 783,537,000,000 for 20,000,000 won for 384,000 won for 20,000 won for 2016.

D. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant on November 15, 2016, but was dismissed on December 21, 2016. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 10, 2017, but was dismissed on May 22, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 13, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In accordance with the articles of incorporation and the rules on the payment of retirement allowances for executive officers, the Plaintiff paid retirement allowances to ParkCC, which did not receive retirement allowances in the future, and completed the interim settlement of the retirement allowances at issue. Therefore, even though the retirement allowances at issue should be included in the calculation of losses, the instant disposition that was disposed of by deeming the issues as bonus to ParkCC or a provisional payment not related to work, is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) ParkCC established the Plaintiff, and thereafter from November 6, 1995, served as a representative director or an in-house director with the representative authority, and was the only registered officer of the Plaintiff after November 30, 201.

2) As of the end of 2015, the Plaintiff’s shareholder status is as follows.

Number of shares held by shareholders (%)

Names of shareholders, shareholders, and positions of shareholders

In-house directors with the Plaintiff’s principal representative authority 77,6048.5

이QQ직원과장(관리부)33,60021.0

Vice Minister of Justice of the KimSS 25,6016.0

Department of WhiteD Personnel (Technology Business Department) 20,8013.0

Park Fur (FF)-800.5

Park GGG (subsidiary)-800.5

Park HH (J)-800.5

3) After conducting interim settlement of retirement pay with ParkCC over the past three times, the Plaintiff submitted a report on retirement income tax and a payment record of retirement income tax to the Defendant, and the specific station is as follows.

Time

ParkCC

Term of Office

Annual earned income;

Intermediate-paid Retirement Allowances

201

1995. 11. 8. 〜 2001. 12. 31

9,780,000 won

9,872,00 won

203

From November 8, 1995 to April 2, 2003

1,540,000 won

1,000,000 won

206

2006. 1. 31. 〜 2006. 12. 31.

2,430,00 won

1,800,000 won

4) The wage details from 2008 to 2016 of the ParkCC (before deducting pension, insurance, taxes, etc.) are as follows:

Reversion

Basic level

Bonuses

Other

Total

208

3.8 million won per month

3.8 million won (one month)

53,200,000 won

209

4 million won per month;

3.8 million won (one month)

16 million won (two months)

67,800,000 won

2010

5 million won per month;

8 million won (one month)

5 million won (in December)

73,000,000 won

2011

5 million won per month (1,200 won per month)

12 million won per month (3-12 months)

5 million won (one month)

135,000,000 won

2012

12 million won per month;

12 million won (one month)

156,000,000 won

2013

12 million won per month;

10,564,593 won (two months)

154,564,593 won

2014

20 million won per month;

9,186,560 Won (one month)

309,186,560 won

2015

20 million won per month;

18,372,315 won

101,614,335 won

(Amount exceeding the limit for the retirement income of officers under the Income Tax Act)

419,986,650 won

2016

30 million won per month;

396,00,000 won

5) The Plaintiff’s financial status from 2011 to 2016 is as follows.

Net sales profit per business profit;

12,818,08,627 won 468,410,933 won 337,453,396 won in 2008

10,580,739,762 Won 361,661,889 Won 298,383,578 won, 2009

9,790,011,741 Won 331,268,921 Won 263,747,875 won, 2010

1,467,143,789 won 301.101,830 won 263,747,875 won in 2011

10,866,535,817 won, 360,180,560 won, 327,277,864 won, 201

13,708,824,579 won 284,388,033 won 340,913,541 won, 2013

13,495,860,193 won 130,282,029 won 416,303,049 won in 2014

17,272,53,733 won 164,149,926 won 696,680,756 won in 2015

16,062,504,487 won 428,889,617 won 563,423,350 won, 2016

6) On December 28, 2015, the Plaintiff and ParkCC concluded a contract for executive remuneration, and the main contents thereof.

The following shall be applicable:

Article 1 (Period of Remuneration Contract)

The term of the relevant contract for remuneration shall be December 29, 2015 to December 28, 2016 (12 months).

Article 3 (Regular Benefits)

30 million won per month of basic wage, 390 million won per year, 396 million won per year;

Article 4 (Regular Contributions)

Bonuses shall not exceed KRW 118,800,000 (within 30% of the basic annual salary) for total of 100,000 won.

Article 5 (Performance Rates)

In addition to the regular bonus under Article 4, the bonus rate shall be in accordance with the rules on payment of executive remuneration by the company and the performance rate payment rules.

may be paid when meeting the prescribed performance standards.

Article 6 (Methods and Timing for Payment)

1) Regular benefits shall be paid on a monthly basis, on a monthly basis, on a daily basis for the month in which the payment is not made.

2) Payment of regular benefits shall be made on the last day of each month.

3) A regular bonus shall be paid in the same manner as a regular bonus is paid in March, June, September, and December.

4) If the person is eligible for performance rates, the board of directors shall be determined and paid within the first quarter of that year.

Article 7 (Retirement Allowances)

ParkCC’s retirement allowance shall not be deemed to exist.

7) On December 28, 2015, ParkCC requested the Plaintiff to make an interim settlement of the retirement pay on the ground that “A request for interim settlement of the payment of retirement pay up to the time when a company director’s wage to ParkCC is converted into an annual salary pursuant to Article 3 of the Regulations on Payment of Retirement Allowances for Officers of Party Parties and the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act and the actual reason for retirement.”

8) On December 28, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) held a temporary general meeting of shareholders on December 28, 2015 to pay KRW 2050,000,000,000, which was calculated in accordance with the articles of incorporation, as a condition that subsequent retirement benefits will not be paid as a result of the conversion of the benefits to the annual salary system; (b) passed a resolution with the consent of the present shareholders, on the agenda that 205,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which was calculated in accordance with the articles of incorporation, shall be paid as retirement benefits; (c) the amendment of the articles of incorporation and the regulations on payment of retirement allowances

A) Articles of Incorporation before the amendment

Article 30 (Remuneration and Retirement Allowance)

(1) Remuneration for directors and auditors shall be determined at a general meeting of shareholders.

(2) Retirement allowances for retired executives shall be governed by the payment regulations of retirement allowances for executives approved at a general meeting of shareholders.

B) Articles of Incorporation after the amendment

Article 40 (Remuneration and Retirement Allowance for Directors)

1) The remuneration of directors shall be limited to one billion won per year, subject to the separate rules on remuneration for executives set forth by the shareholders’ general meeting.

2) Retirement allowances of retired directors shall be calculated by up to 3 billion won per year (pre-retirement benefits x number of years of service x rate of payment x rate of payment). Detailed details shall be governed by the separate rules on the payment of retirement allowances for officers as determined by the general

Article 49 (Remuneration for Auditor and Retirement Allowance)

1) The auditor’s remuneration shall be up to five hundred million won per year in accordance with the separate rules on the remuneration for executive officers determined by the shareholders’ meeting.

2) Retirement allowances of the retired auditor shall be calculated by up to 1.5 billion won per annum (pre-retirement benefits x number of years of service x rate of payment x rate). Detailed details shall be governed by the separate rules on the payment of retirement allowances for officers determined by the general

Addenda

The articles of incorporation shall enter into force on December 28, 2015.

C) Provisions on payment of retirement allowances for officers before the amendment

Article 3 (Objects of Payment)

The retirement allowance under this Regulation shall be paid when a person who has been appointed as a full-time officer and has held office for at least one year retires, when he/she becomes a part-time officer, or when he/she is a part-time officer, or when he/she calculates the retirement allowance on the condition that no future

Article 4 (Calculation of Retirement Allowances)

1) Retirement allowances for officers shall be (average monthly amount of remuneration immediately before retirement) ¡¿ (re-employment years) ¡¿ (payment rate).

2) The average monthly amount of remuneration immediately before retirement shall be [the total amount of remuneration for the three months immediately before the date on which the cause occurred (the total amount of remuneration paid for the three months immediately before the date on which the cause occurred)/3]. However, where

3) The term of office shall be deemed to continue to be in office when he/she is reappointed or reappointed from the date on which he/she first takes office.

4) In the case of a fraction less than one year, less than six months shall be six months shall be deemed to be six months, and not less than six months shall be deemed to be one year.

Article 5 (Standards for Calculating Payment Rates)

The rate of payment shall be calculated as follows according to the continuous service period of executives:

Separate Payment Rate

More than three years of service and less than three years of service;

President of the representative director34

Managing Director 23.5

Executive Director 23.5

Directors 23

Standing auditors 1.52

Article 6 (Amount of Monthly Remuneration)

The term "amount of monthly remuneration" referred to in the preceding Article means the average remuneration for three months before retirement, including a fixed allowance paid every month, and includes bonuses.

Article 7 (Calculation of Period of Reappointment)

The period of office refers to the period from the date of the first appointment to the date of the appointment of dismissal.

Addenda

This Regulation shall enter into force on July 28, 201.

D) A provision on payment of retirement allowances for officers after the amendment (hereinafter referred to as “instant provision”).

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of this Regulation is to provide for the matters relating to the payment of retirement allowances for officers under Articles 40 and 49 of the Articles of Incorporation.

Article 3 (Conditions of Payment)

The retirement allowances under these provisions shall be paid when an executive with at least one year's continuous service period retires. In this case, the scope of retirement includes the "real retirement (including the provisions related to interim settlement)" from the Corporate Tax Act and the Income Tax Act applied at the time of retirement.

Article 4 (Calculation of Retirement Allowances)

Retirement allowances shall be the following amounts:

1. Standards for calculation of retirement allowances;

Retirement allowance = The average monthly amount of remuneration before retirement ¡¿ the number of years of continuous service ¡¿ Payment rate.

2. The average monthly remuneration amount before retirement = (the total salary amount received for three months retroactively from the date of retirement).

3. Length of service = The length of service from the first appointment date to the last day of service (a fraction less than one year shall be less than six months in cases of fraction less than one year, and a period of less than six months shall be deemed six months, and one year in cases of not less

4. The payment rates shall be as follows, and they shall be applied to the total period of service during retirement:

Position Payment Rate

The number of years of service between five years and five years of continuous service exceeds 10 years of continuous service;

The representative director, the director 2-3 times

Audit 1.5 double times 2.5 times

Article 5 (Methods of Payment of Retirement Allowances)

Retirement allowances shall, in principle, be paid in cash, but may be paid in assets ( inventory assets, financial assets, securities, fixed assets, etc.) of a company, other than cash, if requested or consented by the retired person. In such cases, the evaluation of assets other than cash paid as retirement allowances shall be conducted in accordance with the method

Addenda

The provisions of Article 1 (Effective Date) shall enter into force on December 28, 2015.The provisions of Article 2 (Application) shall also apply to the officers appointed prior to the enforcement of this provision. This provision shall also apply retroactively to the continuous service period prior to the enforcement of this provision, provided that retired officers prior to the enforcement of this provision shall be excluded from the application of this provision.

9) On December 15, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) requested an appraisal corporation and the central appraisal corporation to appraise the real estate at issue, which is the Plaintiff’s place of business, as of December 15, 2015; (b) as a result, each of the appraisal of the real estate at issue, which is the Plaintiff’s place of business, was assessed as KRW 1 billion,000,0000,000. The Plaintiff and ParkCC agreed to pay in kind the real estate at KRW 1 billion out of the retirement pay on December 28, 2015 (average of the appraised value); and (c) completed the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate at issue on the ground of payment in kind on December 30, 2015. Meanwhile, on December 28, 2015, the Plaintiff leased the real estate at KRW 60 million,000,0000,000,000 won, and the monthly rent 6 million.

10) From June 22, 2015 to July 8, 2015, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 182,405,360 to the retirement pension. On November 28, 2008, the Plaintiff subscribed to ParkCC for an alternative pension to the Plaintiff, and the beneficiary. As of December 28, 2015, the termination refund amounted to KRW 601,441,00. As of December 28, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 182,405,360, out of the ParkCC and the retirement pension paid to the company’s share of the retirement pension, and the amount of KRW 601,441,00,00 was changed to ParkCC to the contractor’s name. The retirement pension was terminated on December 28, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2-16, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether it constitutes a realistic retirement

A) Article 44(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26068, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter the same) provides that “The retirement benefits that a corporation pays to an executive officer shall be included in the calculation of deductible expenses only when the executive officer actually retires. The actual retirement benefits include any of the following cases where the corporation actually paid the retirement benefits.” Article 44(1) and (2) provides that “When the corporation pays the retirement benefits to an executive officer under the condition that the retirement benefits will not be paid in the future by converting the corporate’s benefits to the annual salary system, the retirement benefits shall

B) First of all, we examine whether the annual salary system has been converted between the Plaintiff and ParkCC. It is reasonable to view that the above remuneration contract constitutes an annual salary contract concluded with the Plaintiff as an intention to convert the annual salary system. On the other hand, as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the above remuneration contract constituted an annual salary contract concluded with the Plaintiff on December 28, 2015, based on which the annual salary is KRW 396 million (monthly 330 million) and the annual salary is paid within the limit of KRW 18,800,000,000,000, which is 30% of the annual salary, and the bonus was paid and the bonus was paid at the time of achievement of a certain performance standard. However, in light of the fact that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the above remuneration contract had been concluded with the Plaintiff on the ground that the above basic salary was paid each month by the Plaintiff prior to the conclusion of the executive remuneration contract, there was no other evidence to acknowledge that there was a lack of basic salary payment as well as the annual salary.

(The interim settlement of retirement pay in 2001, 2003, 2006 shall not be considered as the actual settlement of retirement pay in light of the period of the settlement of accounts and the scale of the retirement pay).

C) Next, we examine whether the Plaintiff and ParkCC agreed to settle the retirement benefits up to the date on which the retirement benefits will not be paid in the future under the condition that the retirement benefits will not be paid in the future. The fact that ParkCC applied for interim settlement of the retirement benefits on December 28, 2015 under the condition that the Plaintiff would not pay the retirement benefits in the future, and that the Plaintiff resolved to make interim settlement of the retirement benefits on the condition that ParkCC would not pay the retirement benefits in the temporary shareholders’ meeting on the same day, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff calculated the retirement benefits under the condition that the retirement benefits will not be paid in the future between the Plaintiff and ParkCC (see Articles 6 and 28 of the instant provision, the compensation amount would be paid to the bereaved family, but this cannot be viewed as the payment of the retirement benefits as the benefits that the bereaved family members would be entitled to receive in the inherent beneficiaries).

(D) Lastly, examining whether the Plaintiff actually paid retirement allowances to ParkCC. Article 44(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act appears to the purport that the corporation would not allow the inclusion of retirement allowances in deductible expenses only with an agreement for the payment of retirement allowances not actually paid. Article 43(1) of the Labor Standards Act, which provides that the payment of wages directly in currency, applies to executives who are not workers. Article 388 of the Commercial Act provides that "the remuneration of directors shall be determined by the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders." It is reasonable to view that the amount of retirement allowances of directors may be determined by the articles of incorporation or by the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders in accordance with delegation, or by the regulations for the payment of retirement allowances to executives adopted at the general meeting of shareholders (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da98720, May 29, 2014). However, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff's 200,000 won, other than the Plaintiff's retirement allowances paid in cash or in accordance with its articles.

E) Therefore, it is determined that ParkCC received retirement benefits under the condition that subsequent retirement benefits will not be paid as a result of converting it into an annual salary system on December 28, 2015, and that it actually retired under Article 44(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

2) Whether the articles of incorporation constitutes a retirement allowance payment provision for executives

A) Article 26 subparag. 1 of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the amount deemed excessive or unreasonable, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, shall not be included in deductible expenses when calculating the amount of income of a domestic corporation for each business year, and Article 44(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the amount in excess of any of the following amounts shall not be included in deductible expenses shall be included in the amount of retirement benefits paid by the corporation to its executive officers" under subparagraph 1 of the same Article provides that "where the amount to be paid as retirement benefits (including retirement benefits, etc.) is determined by the articles of incorporation," "the amount determined by the articles of incorporation," and "the amount calculated by multiplying the amount equivalent to 1/10 of the amount of gross income paid to the relevant executive officer for one year retroactively from the date of his/her retirement by the number of years retroactively calculated by the method prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance" under paragraph (5) of the same Article.

In light of the language and structure of such provisions and the legislative intent of preventing an unfair reduction of corporate income, retirement benefits paid to executives pursuant to the articles of incorporation or the rules on payment of retirement benefits delegated by the articles of incorporation (hereinafter referred to as “Rules on Retirement Benefits”) that provide for the amount of retirement benefits to be paid to executives or employees, or the rules on payment of retirement benefits delegated by the articles of incorporation (hereinafter referred to as “the rules on executives’ payment of retirement benefits”) were enacted or amended to include the total amount in deductible expenses; however, a person who is in a position likely to affect the enactment or amendment or a person who is in a family relationship with such person as a retired officer was paid retirement benefits rapidly increased as such; and accordingly, the amount of retirement benefits actually paid is extremely difficult to be considered as remuneration for labor or contribution during the period of service of the relevant retired officer or a corporation whose amount of retirement benefits actually paid is similar to that of a corporation, and the amount of retirement benefits paid to an officer cannot be deemed as falling under Article 25(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da56148.

B) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the following circumstances revealed through the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings are comprehensively taken into account. The instant provision does not practically aim at allocating the corporation’s assets to ParkCC in the form of retirement benefits, but does not constitute a retirement allowance payment provision for the payment of compensation for labor, etc.

(1) ParkCC was the only registered director as a shareholder and representative director who established the Plaintiff, and all other shareholders of the Plaintiff were children of ParkCC or the Plaintiff’s employee. As such, ParkCC actually controlled the Plaintiff and was in a position to amend its articles of incorporation and the regulations on payment of retirement allowances for officers as desired by the Plaintiff.

(2) On July 25, 2011, the Plaintiff first enacted a retirement allowance regulation for officers, and the monthly salary of ParkCC was increased from 5 million to 12 million won since March 2011, the immediately preceding year. From 2014, the monthly salary was increased by 25 million won again. On February 3, 2015, the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act was promulgated by Presidential Decree No. 26068, Jan. 1, 2016, and it was impossible to make interim settlement of retirement allowances based on the conversion of the annual salary system for officers from January 1, 2016. As such, ParkCC and the Plaintiff held a temporary general meeting of shareholders on December 28, 2015, the three days immediately preceding and the three days prior to the amendment of both the articles of incorporation and the retirement allowance payment regulations for officers, and made an explicit basis provision that retirement allowances may be paid as assets other than cash.

(3) Even when considering the long term of office as an executive officer of ParkCC, the amount of KRW 2,05,000,000,000 as at the time of payment, to the extent that it considerably exceeds the Plaintiff’s seven-year operating profit (from 2009 to 2015), the net income for five-year (from 2011 to 2015), and the amount of KRW 1,00,000,000,000 out of the key retirement pay to the Plaintiff as real estate as the key issue.

(4) The Plaintiff may not be deemed to have paid or be able to pay retirement allowances to other executives and employees who are not ParkCC at issue in the interim settlement of the retirement allowances in question.

(5) Ultimately, the instant provision is intended to justify the payment of retirement allowances according to the ParkCC’s wage rapidly increased before and after the enactment of the rules on the payment of retirement allowances for officers, and it seems that it is merely an intermediate method of transferring the Plaintiff’s real estate without compensation and allocating the Plaintiff’s profits.

3) Limit of inclusion of key retirement pay in deductible expenses

As seen earlier, the amount of retirement benefits calculated pursuant to the provisions of this case shall be the total amount of benefits paid to the relevant executive for one year retroactively from the date of retirement (excluding non-taxable income under Article 12 of the Income Tax Act) where the amount to be paid as retirement benefits is not determined by the articles of incorporation of the former Enforcement Decree [in cases where the amount to be paid as retirement benefits to the executive is not determined, it shall be the amount under Article 20 (1) 1 and 2 of the Income Tax Act (excluding non-taxable income under Article 12 of the same Act). The amount not included in deductible expenses pursuant to Article 43 shall be included in deductible expenses only the amount calculated by multiplying the amount equivalent to 1/10 of the exclusion by the number of years of service as determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance; the excess amount shall not be included in deductible expenses]; Article 22 (5) of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act [the period of less than one year shall be calculated as the number of months when calculating the number of years of service; the period of less than one month shall not be included in deductible expenses; 1000 million won x 16 months 1.2 months from the total period of less than 16 months.2 months.

4) Whether the disposition of the instant corporate tax was lawful and the scope of revocation

As seen earlier, the reasonable tax amount of KRW 602,50,000 among the retirement allowances at issue shall be KRW 142,325,669, and the basis for the calculation shall be as shown in attached Form 2. [Attachment 2] The "political tax amount" in attached Form 2 is as shown in attached Form 3 [Attachment 3], and the basis for calculation of the amount of KRW 2,846,923,742 is as stated in the "amount of inclusion in gross income and non-Inclusion in deductible expenses", and the basis for calculation of the amount of KRW 2,059,431,779 (attached Form 4] is as shown in attached Form 4.

Therefore, among the disposition imposing corporate tax of this case, the part exceeding the above KRW 142,325,669 should be revoked.

5) Whether notice of change in the income amount of this case is lawful

According to Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 106 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, where it is clear that the amount included in the calculation of earnings has been leaked out of the company, it shall be disposed of as a bonus for the person to whom the income accrued if it is an executive, and if the amount included in the calculation of earnings has not been leaked out of the company, it shall be treated as a retained earnings. Furthermore, the amount exceeding the limit prescribed in Article 44(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act out of the retirement allowances paid to the executive, and the amount exceeding the limit prescribed in Article 67-1064 of the Corporate Tax Act as a bonus for the executive.

In light of the contents and purport of the aforementioned relevant laws and regulations, since the issue of real estate worth KRW 1.04,1,000,000 has been over the ownership transfer registration in the future of ParkCC due to payment in kind, it is clear that the issue belongs to ParkCC as a result of outflow out of company and ownership transfer registration. This belongs to the portion exceeding KRW 602,50,000,000,000, which is the retirement pay limit for inclusion in deductible expenses, out of the issues equivalent to KRW 2.05,000,000, it is justifiable to dispose of it as a bonus of ParkCC. However, as seen earlier, insofar as only KRW 602,50,000,00 is recognized as a legitimate retirement allowance, the remainder after deducting the above amount from KRW 784,846,360,00,00 should be disposed of as a bonus (see attached Form 3), the recognized amount of KRW 444,537,000,000.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is accepted.

The claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.