B. On April 8, 2011, the head of Ethacheon Tax Office imposed an additional tax of KRW 1,042,793,876, and KRW 654,395,540 (including additional tax) in the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 2,613,908,98,980 (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff Punobya Korea Ltd. for the business year 2006, and imposed an additional tax of KRW 208,353,865, and KRW 1,535,705,540 (including additional tax) for the business year 207;

C. On April 14, 201, the part exceeding 158,856,40 won of the imposition disposition of the value-added tax of KRW 854,886,600 (including additional tax) imposed on Plaintiff Punobya Korea Co., Ltd. for KRW 158,856,60 in 206; the part exceeding KRW 60,197,470 in the imposition disposition of the value-added tax of KRW 191,523,080 in 206; the part exceeding KRW 213,089,870 in the imposition disposition of the value-added tax of KRW 213,089,870 in 207 (including additional tax); the part exceeding KRW 88,436,120 in the imposition disposition of the value-added tax of KRW 673,596,190 in 209; the imposition disposition of the value-added tax of KRW 190 (including additional tax);

Each cancellation shall be revoked.

2. The remaining claims of the Plaintiff Punoa Korea Ltd. are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff Punoa Korea and the Defendant Kuhoa Tax Office shall be borne by the head of the competent District Tax Office, and the 1/2 of the part arising between the Plaintiff Punooa Korea Ltd. and the Defendant Eicheon Tax Office shall be borne by the said Plaintiff, and the remainder by the said Defendant respectively.

A. The plaintiffs' relationship

1) The Plaintiff PRK Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff PRK”) that comprehensively acquired the business of the Plaintiff PRK Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff PRK”) around May 9, 2006 from the previous career siren Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “former career siren Co., Ltd.”) and the Plaintiff PRK Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff PRK”) are all corporations with a special relationship governed by PRR S.A., which are manufacturing, importing, and selling alcoholic beverages.

2) Around February 2000, Plaintiff PRK and JB entered into a service agreement for the settlement of common expenses with the following contents, and thereafter Plaintiff PRK succeeded to the status of the above contract of JBIC by comprehensively taking over all the business related to the import and sale of Magice and Magren products from JBIC on April 14, 2006.

Article 1 (General Provisions) of the Table contained in the main text of this Decree and the PEKRI shall use part of the other party services and thereby determine and settle the amount of indirect expenses incurred by the other party as a result of the use of part of the other party services, and the direct expenses clear to vest in the expenses shall be borne by each company in accordance with the principle of response to profit and expenses. The indirect expenses incurred by both companies during each fiscal year under Article 2 (Definition of Expenses and Period for Settlement) shall be the indirect expenses necessary for the use of part of the other party services and the distribution to the other party company as a result, and the settlement period shall be the same as the two companies: Provided, That in 206 years from the first year of the transfer of the assets and liabilities of the JBIC, the settlement period shall be based on the amount and details of the sales expenses and general management expenses of the financial statements audited by the external auditor after the end of each fiscal year. Article 4 (Criteria for Distribution of Common Expenses)

3) According to the above contract, the Plaintiffs shared indirect expenses, such as joint personnel expenses, office operation and maintenance expenses, among the joint expenses at the end of each fiscal year, based on the total sales of the two companies. The joint expenses for the promotion of the promotion of the promotion of the promotion of the promotion of the promotion of the promotion of the promotion of the promotion of the promotion of the promotion of the promotion of the promotion of the promotion of the promotion of the promotional activities

B. Plaintiffs’ report of corporate tax and value added tax

1) From April 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007 (hereinafter “group 1 period”), the Plaintiffs shared common expenses based on the “amount of sales in the immediately preceding business year”. The Plaintiffs did not include the Plaintiff’s sales in the amount of sales in the business transferor’s JBIC during the immediately preceding business year.

2) The Plaintiffs shared common expenses based on “the sales revenue of the pertinent business year” during the period from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2009 (hereinafter “group 2 period”).

C. Tax investigation on the plaintiffs

As a result of conducting a tax investigation on the plaintiffs, the Central Regional Tax Office decided that the sharing ratio should be calculated by the following methods in relation to the sharing of the common expenses of both companies, and notified the defendants of the imposition of corporate tax by non-Inclusion of the portion of the common expenses that the plaintiffs paid to the defendants in excess of the apportionment ratio, and the imposition of value-added tax on the portion of the small

1) As Plaintiff PRK acquired all business rights from JBIC on April 14, 2006, in allocating group 1 joint expenses, the sales revenue of Plaintiff PRK for the immediately preceding business year should also include the sales revenue of JBIC, a business transferor.

2) According to Article 26 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter “former Corporate Tax Act”) and Article 48(1)2(a) of the former Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22035, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act”), joint expenses shall be apportioned based on sales for the immediately preceding business year. Thus, in allocating group 2-period joint expenses, the Plaintiffs shall bear joint expenses based on sales for the immediately preceding business year.

D. Tax imposition disposition by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs

According to the notice of the results of the tax investigation as above, the defendant's director of the Korea-U.S. Tax Office imposed corporate tax and value-added tax as shown in the separate sheet No. 1 on April 8, 201; the defendant Leecheon Tax Office imposed corporate tax as listed in the separate sheet No. 2 on April 8, 2011; and the value-added tax as listed in the separate sheet No. 3 on April 14, 201 (hereinafter "each of the instant dispositions").

(e) Procedures of the previous trial;

The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with each of the dispositions in this case and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but they were dismissed on May 23, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Each disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) Whether Article 26 subparag. 5 of the former Corporate Tax Act applies

Since not only the plaintiffs are running separate businesses, but also their own independent organizations are operated, the common expenses to be shared among the plaintiffs cannot be deemed as "loss incurred or disbursed by a corporation that jointly operates or engages in the same organization, business, etc. as those other than the pertinent corporation" under Article 26 subparagraph 5 of the former Corporate Tax Act. Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case imposed on the premise that the above Acts and subordinate statutes are applied is unlawful.

2) Claim for illegality and invalidation under Article 48(1)2(a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

Article 48 (1) 2 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree provision of this case”) with respect to the share of common expenses shall be interpreted in accordance with the purport that Article 26 of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that only the “amount deemed to be excessive or unjust” among the corporation’s losses shall not be included in deductible expenses. On the contrary, interpreting “amount of sales in the immediately preceding business year” as the only standard for sharing common expenses exceeds the bounds of delegation legislation, and thus, the provision of the Enforcement Decree of this case, which is interpreted as unlawful or invalid, is unlawful. Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case, which was conducted based on the provision of the Enforcement Decree of this case, which is unlawful or invalid, is unlawful.

3) Disposition on imposition of the corporate tax related to group 1 period

In allocating the common expenses of the plaintiffs for a group 1 year, the defendant disposed of each of the instant dispositions including the sales revenue of the plaintiff PRK in the immediately preceding business year prior to the business transfer. This cannot be allowed to deny the taxpayer's loss including the sales revenue of the non-joint business operator due to the incidental circumstances of the business transfer and takeover. In the case of dissolution during the same business year as JBIC, it is not allowed to deny the taxpayer's loss, including the sales revenue of the non-joint business operator. In the case of dissolution during the same business year as JBIC, the head of the tax office of Leecheon-cheon calculated the sales revenue by applying the method of converting the income for less than one year into the calendar year without any legal basis

4) Disposition on imposition of the corporate tax relating to group 2 years

In allocating common expenses for a group 2 period, the Plaintiffs: (a) if distributed based on sales for the immediately preceding business year due to a sudden change in the ratio of sales amount, either party would receive excessive common expenses and cause tax loss; and (b) during the pertinent business year, the Plaintiffs distributed them based on sales amount for the pertinent business year; (c) as such, if the application of the standards for sales amount for the immediately preceding business year significantly unreasonable results, the ratio of sharing should be determined in accordance with reasonable standards; and (d) furthermore, the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the instant case, which, through the amendment on February 18, 2010, were able

In particular, Article 25(2)3(b) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 266, Feb. 28, 2012; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act”) provides a separate standard of sales, “domestic sales among sales in accordance with corporate accounting standards,” taking into account the characteristics of the joint advertising and publicity expenses,” and the proviso provides the scope of and exceptions to “amount equivalent to twice the sales” under the foregoing provision, the Defendants, without considering the above Enforcement Rule in relation to the distribution of the joint advertising and publicity expenses, set the ratio of sharing common expenses only based on the sales

Therefore, the imposition of corporate tax related to group 2 that uniformly applies the sales standard for the immediately preceding business year is illegal.

5) Imposition of value-added tax

Among each of the dispositions of this case, the imposition of value-added tax is both illegal and illegal. The imposition of value-added tax in relation to the illegal grounds for the imposition of corporate tax as seen earlier is illegal. The allocation of common expenses of this case is made according to a contract concluded between the plaintiffs, and the Defendants cannot again calculate the apportionment amount and impose value-added tax pursuant to Article 48 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. In particular, in the case of erroneous distribution of common expenses in terms of corporate tax, the provisions that require the supplier to deduct the input tax amount as to the purchase excess of the purchaser's purchase amount under the Value-Added Tax Act are illegal. Thus, the imposition of value-added tax

6) Imposition of additional tax

Among each of the dispositions in this case, the imposition of additional tax is limited to the tax payment notice and does not stipulate the grounds for calculation at all, and in the case of the common expense allocation method, if there is significance in the interpretation of the language and text of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it constitutes the case where there is a justifiable reason for the failure of the plaintiffs to fulfill their duty to pay taxes. Therefore, the imposition of additional tax is unlawful

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form 4 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to whether Article 26 subparag. 5 of the former Corporate Tax Act is applied provisional

A) Article 26 Subparag. 5 of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that when calculating the respective income amount of a domestic corporation, the amount deemed excessive or unreasonable, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, among losses incurred or spent by a corporation in jointly operating or operating the same organization, business, etc. as those other than the relevant corporation, shall not be included in deductible expenses.

B) We examine whether the plaintiffs jointly operate or operate the same organization or business, etc., and comprehensively consider the following circumstances, namely, ① the corporation that owns alcoholic beverage production facilities in Ischeon-si and carries on the manufacture and sale of ice products based on them. Plaintiff PRK mainly carries on the import and sale of flue products from JBIC after acquiring alcoholic beverage import business from JBIC; ② Plaintiff PRK was a corporation that mainly carries on the import and sale of flue products; ② Plaintiff PRK was established as a separate corporation due to the former liquor tax treatment regulations that did not issue both licenses and alcoholic beverage import licenses; but the management and operation of flue products conducted by both corporations were similar or similar to the sale of flue products; ③ the Plaintiffs concluded a joint organization agreement to carry out management and operation of flue products; ③ the collective organization expenses, such as personnel expenses, rent and maintenance expenses, and sales of flue products, based on the total operating sales of flue products; and the Plaintiffs jointly concluded the joint organization expenses for flue products.

Therefore, the common expenses that the plaintiffs agreed to share are subject to Article 26 subparagraph 5 of the former Corporate Tax Act.

2) Determination as to the assertion of unconstitutionality or illegality under the provision of the Enforcement Decree of the instant case

A) In calculating each amount of income of a domestic corporation, Article 26 subparag. 5 of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that the amount deemed excessive or unreasonable among losses incurred by the corporation in jointly operating or operating the same organization, business, etc. with a person other than the relevant corporation, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, shall not be included in deductible expenses. In addition, Article 48(1)2(a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that among losses incurred by the corporation in jointly operating or operating the same organization, business, etc. as that of a person other than the relevant corporation, the amount in excess of the share amount pursuant to the ratio of sales of the relevant corporation to the total amount of sales of the relevant corporation in the immediately preceding business year shall not

However, Article 48(1)2(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 22035, Feb. 18, 2010 provides that a taxpayer may select and apply the standards for sharing common expenses from among the sales in the immediately preceding business year and the sales in the pertinent business year by changing the former provision to “ratio of the sales in the pertinent corporation to the amount selected by the corporation (in cases of failure to select, the total sales in the immediately preceding business year or the pertinent business year shall be deemed to have been selected, and shall be applied for five consecutive business years from the selected business year)” (hereinafter “amended Enforcement Decree provision”).

Meanwhile, under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law unless there are special circumstances, and it shall not be permitted to expand or analogical interpretation without reasonable grounds. However, where it is necessary to clarify the meaning through mutual interpretation between the laws and regulations, it shall be permitted to make a combined interpretation in consideration of the legislative purport and purpose, etc. within the scope that does not undermine the legal stability and predictability oriented by the principle of no taxation without law (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du4438, Feb. 15, 2008, etc.). Meanwhile, the Enforcement Decree or Enforcement Rule of the Act cannot modify or supplement the contents of rights and obligations of individuals or provide new contents that are not prescribed by the law, unless otherwise prescribed by the law, unless it is delegated by the law, it is merely possible to interpret the parent law by systematically and systematically examining the legislative purport of the law and the entire provisions of the law, or if it is for the purposes of embodying it based on the purport of the mother law, it shall not be deemed that the provisions of the mother law are beyond the scope of the law.

B) In light of the above legal principles, with regard to whether the provision of the Enforcement Decree of this case exceeded the scope of delegation of the mother law, it prevents the inclusion of common expenses in deductible expenses in excess of the apportionment ratio for the purpose of tax avoidance by prescribing that the amount deemed excessive or unjust among the common expenses of a corporation is excluded from deductible expenses. However, it is necessary to set specific criteria to determine whether the provision of this case constitutes excessive or unfair common expenses; ② The allocation standard of common expenses among corporations with a special relationship should be determined in consideration of the professional and technical factors of tax law, such as special relationship under the Corporate Tax Act, inclusion in deductible expenses, etc.; ③ The provision of the Enforcement Decree of this case only provides for the turnover of the immediately preceding business year; ③ The amendment provision of this case allows taxpayers to share common expenses according to more reasonable standards by allowing taxpayers to select from among the sales of the immediately preceding business year and the sales of the pertinent business year; ④ Even if the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of this case was made, it can not be seen that the provision of this case is inconsistent with the purport of Article 26 subparag. 5 of the mother Act.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3) The legality of the imposition of corporate tax related to group 1 period

A) Determination as to the assertion that the sales of JBIC should not be included in the sales of the Plaintiff PRK for the immediately preceding business year

In light of the following circumstances: ① Plaintiff PRK and JBIC were a corporation mainly engaged in importing alcoholic beverages; Plaintiff PRK took over all the business related to the import and sale of PPPP products from JBIC; JBIC immediately closed its business after transferring the relevant business; ② Plaintiff PRIC and JBIC entered into a joint security settlement service contract from February 2000; Plaintiff JBIC succeeded to the status of the above contract of JBIC while transferring its business to Plaintiff PPIC; Plaintiff PRK succeeded to the rights and obligations under the above contract of JBIC; ③ even in calculating the sales amount of the immediately preceding business year in the immediately preceding business year, Plaintiff PRK included Plaintiff RB’s sales amount in the immediately preceding business year in the immediately preceding business year in the immediately preceding business year; and “The immediately preceding business year includes Plaintiff RB’s sales amount in the immediately preceding business year in the immediately preceding business year.”

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

B) Determination on the assertion that the business year of the group 1 period was unfairly extended

Article 55 (2) of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that the corporate tax on the income for each business year of a domestic corporation with less than one year less than one year shall be the amount calculated by dividing the amount calculated by application of the provisions of Article 13 for the business year by the number of months in the business year and multiplying by 12, the tax base for the business year shall be the tax amount calculated by multiplying the tax amount calculated under the provisions of paragraph (1) by the number of months in the business year divided by 12.

The purpose of determining the sharing ratio of common expenses among joint businessmen is to calculate corporate tax on income for each business year. In determining the sharing ratio of common expenses based on the sales in the immediately preceding business year, if the sales in the previous business year of either party falls short of one year and the number of months in the immediately preceding business year of both companies is less than one year, the sharing ratio shall be set based on the sales converted into one year pursuant to Article 55(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act. The defendant Leecheon Tax Office set the sharing ratio by the above method as above.

Therefore, the imposition of corporate tax for one-year period by the defendant Leecheon Tax Office is legitimate, and this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

4) The legality of the imposition of corporate tax related to group 2 years

In light of the following circumstances, the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence, and the overall purport of the statement and arguments, which can be seen as above: (i) Plaintiff PRI sold ice products at a direct sales outlet located within the territory of Korea. On December 27, 2007, when the permission for the establishment of the above PP sales outlet was revoked by the Director of the Korea Tax Office, the sales period of Plaintiff PRI’s Group 2 was reduced due to the decrease of the Seoul Metropolitan area of domestic manufacturing PPPPG products, and the revenue PPG products were replaced by domestic manufacturing PPG products, and the sales period of Plaintiff 2 was increased rapidly; and (ii) Plaintiff PEI, as a result of the immediately preceding business year’s determination of the ratio of sales revenue to the amount of common expenses for the pertinent business year, can be deemed to be unlawful for the immediately preceding business year, and thus, it would be possible to apply the aforementioned provision to the Plaintiffs’ reasonable allocation of sales revenue for the pertinent business year to the extent that it would result in an excessive allocation of losses.

Therefore, the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2008 against Plaintiff PRK on April 8, 201 and the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2009, which Defendant Echeon Tax Office rendered against Plaintiff PRK on April 8, 201, is unlawful without any need to further examine the remainder of the plaintiffs' claims. This part of the plaintiffs' assertion is with merit.

5) The legality of imposition of value-added tax

A) The legality of imposing value-added tax on a group 2 period

On the other hand, the fact that the plaintiffs issued tax invoices and reported and paid value-added taxes on the common expenses for the period of group 2 years based on the sales amount for the pertinent business year was examined above. The plaintiffs' common expenses sharing ratio for the period of group 2 years is more reasonable than applying the sales amount for the pertinent business year in comparison with applying the standard of sales amount for the pertinent business year. Thus, the disposition imposing value-added tax on group 2 period which the defendants adjusted the ratio of common expenses based on the sales amount for the immediately previous business year is illegal.

Therefore, on April 8, 201, the imposition of the first imposition of the value-added tax in 2008 against Plaintiff PRK and the imposition of the first imposition of the first imposition of the value-added tax in 2009 against Plaintiff PRK on April 14, 201 by the head of the office of education of the defendant Lee Jong-cheon is unlawful. Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is with merit.

B) The legality of imposing value-added tax on group 1 period

Article 17(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013) limits the amount of input tax that can be deducted from the amount of output tax to the amount of tax for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for one’s own business. Article 17(2)3 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that an input tax amount for an expenditure not directly related to a business shall not be deducted from the amount of output tax. Article 60(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22578, Dec. 30, 2010) provides that the scope of input tax amount for an expenditure not directly related to a business shall be governed by Article 78 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act or Articles 48, 49(3) and 50(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

In light of the above provisions, the amount exceeding the sharing ratio under Article 48 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act among the common expenses shall be deemed as the input tax amount for expenditure not directly related to the business under the Value-Added Tax Act, and shall not be deducted from the output tax amount. As seen earlier, even if the Plaintiffs voluntarily shared the common expenses under the settlement agreement and issued sales tax invoices to other companies for the amount disbursed in excess of the sharing ratio, the tax authority may impose value-added tax on the portion paid in excess of the sharing ratio under the Corporate Tax Act among the common expenses.

Therefore, in allocating the common expenses for the period of group 1, it is legitimate that the director of the tax office of Leecheon-soo imposed the value-added tax on the plaintiff PRK without including the plaintiff PRK's sales in the immediately preceding business year's sales for the immediately preceding business year.

However, while the Value-Added Tax Act stipulates that input tax shall not be deducted for the purchase of excessive common expenses, there is no provision that the supplier's tax base shall be increased for the sales and taxes of the supplier. The calculation of value-added tax is illegal by adding the output tax amount to the tax amount without any legal basis when the defendant Leecheon Tax Office imposed the tax amount related to the group 1 period.

Therefore, when calculating a legitimate tax amount by failing to correct the output tax amount in the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the group 1 period, the portion exceeding each of the above amounts should be revoked.

In the event that the assessment of value-added tax on PlaintiffPK was not corrected for the amount of output tax for the first period of January 4, 2006, 4,100,566,778, 936,325,899,886,600, 9325, 899, 158,856, 4006, 799, 799, 799, 366, 672, 672, 601, 191, 523,080, 672, 366, 602, 601, 670, 670, 672, 601, 672, 601, 601, 670, 601, 60160, 197, 4707, 2007, 75267,4784,48475

6) The legality of imposition of additional tax

A) When the principal tax and the additional tax are to be imposed along with a single tax notice, the individual tax amount and the basis for calculation thereof should be stated in the tax notice separately. In addition, where multiple types of additional tax are to be imposed, it is natural for the taxpayer to have the details of each tax disposition known by classifying the amount and the basis for calculation thereof by type (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du12347, Oct. 18, 2012).

B) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8 (including each number), each of the instant dispositions against the plaintiffs is included only in the total tax amount, and the type of additional tax and the grounds for its calculation are not indicated therein. On September 28, 2010, before each of the instant dispositions was issued by the director of the Central District Tax Office, it can be acknowledged that a notice of tax investigation sent to the plaintiffs around September 28, 2010, which was not entirely indicated in the amount of additional tax or the grounds for its calculation. Thus, each of the notice of tax payment to each of the additional tax parts is defective, such as omitting the matters required by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes

Therefore, the imposition of additional tax among the dispositions of this case is unlawful without examining the remaining arguments of the plaintiffs. This part of the plaintiffs' assertion is with merit.

7) Sub-committee

(a) Imposition of the corporate tax and value-added tax related to the group two years;

The imposition of corporate tax of KRW 6,258,689,830 on April 8, 201 against Plaintiff PRK for the business year 2008 and the imposition of KRW 2,724,814,640 (including additional tax) on the first-year value-added tax of KRW 1,535,705,540 (including additional tax) on April 8, 2011 by the head of Leecheon Tax Office for the business year 2008; the imposition of corporate tax of KRW 1,535,705,540 (including additional tax) on Plaintiff PRK on April 14, 201; the imposition of KRW 673,596,190 (including additional tax) on the first-year value-added tax of KRW 2009 against Plaintiff PRK on April 14, 201.

B. The part concerning the imposition of penalty tax on group 1-year-related corporate tax

On April 8, 2011, the part of the disposition imposing corporate tax of KRW 2,613,908,98,980 (including additional tax) imposed by the director of the tax office on Plaintiff PTRI for the business year 2006, which was imposed by the director of the tax office, should be revoked in all of the amount of additional tax of KRW 1,042,793,876, and KRW 654,395,540 (including additional tax) of corporate tax of KRW 2007 for the business year 208,353,865.

(c) Imposition of value-added tax on a group one-year period;

On April 14, 2011, the part exceeding 158,856,400 won of the imposition of the first value-added tax (including the penalty tax) imposed by the head of the tax office of Leecheon-cheon, which was imposed by the Plaintiff PKR against the Plaintiff on April 14, 2006, in excess of 60,197,470 won of the imposition of the second value-added tax in 2006, and the part exceeding 8,436,120 won of the imposition of the first value-added tax (including the penalty tax) in excess of 191,523,080 won of the second value-added tax in 206, must be revoked.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff Punocar Korea's claim is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the plaintiff Punocar Korea's claim is accepted on the grounds of the above recognition scope, and the remaining claims are dismissed on the grounds of its merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Sung-nam (Presiding Judge)