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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation with the purpose of developing cell therapy using stem cells. On January 31, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 1,082,700,000 ($1,000,000,000; hereinafter “the instant donations”) to the University of “△△△△△△” (△△△△△△△). The Plaintiff reported the corporate tax for the year 2013, and disposed of the instant donations as non-deductible income or non-deductible income.

B. On December 9, 2014, the Defendant issued a notice of change in the amount of income (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that △△△ (the largest shareholder and inside director of the Plaintiff) was personally used the instant donations, changing the disposition of income from other outflow to the bonus to △△△ (hereinafter referred to as “the instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 5, 13 evidence, Eul 4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The subject of payment of the donation of this case is not △△, but the Plaintiff. It is unlawful for the Defendant to regard the subject of payment of the donation of this case as △△△, thereby making the instant disposition.

B. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

A) As the Plaintiff’s largest shareholder, △△△ was in the Plaintiff’s internal director position from July 21, 2005 to July 22, 2013. Among them, △△△ was performing the Plaintiff’s representative director position from July 21, 2005 to May 13, 201, and from April 15, 201 to July 22, 2013. △△△△ was in the Plaintiff’s internal and external activities as the Plaintiff’s representative, such as leading the Plaintiff’s research and operating the Plaintiff.

B) On October 2, 2012, △△△ University acquired an honorary doctor’s degree in science from △△ University. △△△△ on the same day, △△△ University decided to contribute USD 1,00,000 to △△ University, and △△△ University and △△ AAA president, △△△△△ University and △△△A president, △△△△△△△△ University prepared a memorandum of understanding (hereinafter referred to as “instant MO

Understanding of Understanding

This Understanding was concluded between △△ University and the Plaintiff.

Article 1 Purpose

Each Party agrees to form a mutual relationship of interest through the exchange of their respective impacts and resources in order to improve human beings through the advancement of Neigregn's country, pursuit of excellence of learning, tending research and application of science.

Article 2 Recognizance of Partnership

Each Party shall agree to propose:

A. Education and training and the joint development of human resources;

(b) the development and exchange of appropriate information on the agreed objectives;

C. Joint use of all facilities.

d. Exchange of specialized networks and business for growth and development;

Article 3. Pileer and Term

This Understanding of Understanding shall take effect from January 15, 2013 and shall remain effective for two years.

(hereinafter omitted)

C) On January 23, 2013, 2013, △△△△ University approved the Plaintiff’s approval on the document (the Plaintiff’s letter team was prepared) stating that “The Plaintiff shall contribute USD 1 million to the △△ University and shall be issued a receipt from the △△ University.” On January 24, 2013, the board of directors was held on January 24, 2013, and the board of directors passed a resolution approving the Plaintiff’s donation of KRW 1 million to the △△ University.

D) On January 29, 2013, the Plaintiff reported capital transactions (donation) to the Bank of Korea, and remitted the instant donations to △△ University on January 31, 2013.

E) On February 8, 2013, △△ University sent the following receipts to △△△△ University.

d. △△ doctorate

I. The thickness will be donated to the △△ University recently, and will be an auditd. The following receipts will be set up for your tax reporting.

Contributor: Plaintiff

Activities: Raising funds:

Fund: △△ Man International Center

Amount of donation: USD 1 million.

Date of donation: February 1, 2013

(hereinafter omitted)

F) On July 3, 2013, Kim Jong-tae, who was in charge of the Plaintiff’s affairs related to the funds, made a statement to the prosecutor on July 3, 2013 to the effect that “When he did not know why he donated the donations of this case, and that he was believed to have sent △△ to receive it on the old belt.”

G) In 2011, the Plaintiff came to KRW 1.4 billion in operating losses, KRW 21.5 billion in operating losses in the current year, KRW 1.17.1 billion in carried forward losses, KRW 16.9 billion in operating losses in the year 2012 (the year immediately before the payment of the donations in this case), KRW 5.4.1 billion in operating losses in the current year, KRW 172.3 billion in carried forward losses, and KRW 1,72.3 billion in carried forward losses.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1-6, 10 evidence, Eul 1-4, 6, 7 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2) In full view of the above facts and circumstances acknowledged or known based on the purport of the entire facts and pleadings, the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant donations were reverted to △△ University is unlawful, since it is insufficient to view that △△○ was paid individually to △△ University.

A) △△△△ was in a position in which the Plaintiff actually managed and operated all of the business of the Plaintiff, and △△△△△ appears to have decided to pay the donation of this case. However, the Plaintiff passed a resolution through the board of directors to pay the donation of this case, reported capital transactions (donation) in the Bank of Korea, and remitted money in the name of the Plaintiff. Although △△△△△△ decided to pay the donation of this case before the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff also seems to have decided to pay the donation according

나) 이 사건 양해각서의 제목 아래에 "본 양해각서는 △△ 대학과 원고 사이에 체결되었다."고 기재되어 있다. 당사자의 서명을 기재하는 란에 당시 대표이사였던 강▼▼의 이름이 기재되어 있지 않고 'President 라◇◇'이라 기재되어 있긴 하나 원고의 President임이 명확히 기재되어 있다. △△ 대학이 라◇◇에게 보낸 영수증에는 '기부자: 원고'라 기재되어 있다. 이는 기부금의 상대방인 △△ 대학이 그 지급 주체가 원고임을 인식하고 있었다는 점을 나타낸다.

C) The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and the Defendant alone is insufficient to ascertain whether △△△△ University obtained an honorary doctor’s degree by obtaining a certain outcome from △△ University. However, there is no evidence to prove that △△△ Hospital paid the instant donations on behalf of the Plaintiff rather than on behalf of the Plaintiff for the purpose of acquiring the degree. It is difficult to deem that △△△△△△ was to pay the donations in personal capacity for the purpose of acquiring the degree.

D) There has been no implementation between the Plaintiff and △△ University on the “joint development, etc. of education and training and human resources, which are the contents set forth in the instant memorandum of Understanding.” However, if the contents of the memorandum of Understanding have not been fulfilled, it may be possible that the buildings to be established as the instant donations have not been completed or have not been implemented due to other circumstances.

E) At the time of the Plaintiff’s payment of the instant donation, the Plaintiff sent the instant donation, which was considerably larger than KRW 200 million, even though it was a situation where the Plaintiff was reporting losses of KRW 200 million or more each year. Meanwhile, in light of the Plaintiff’s size, the Plaintiff’s business run at the time, etc., it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff did not have any reason to pay the instant donation.

F) around June 2013, ○○○ was investigated by the prosecution on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement). In the process, there was an investigation into the payment of the instant donations. On July 16, 2013, the prosecution was not prosecuted on the act of paying the instant donations while prosecuted ○○○○ on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement).

4. Conclusion

The claim of this case is justified and accepted.