A. On September 1, 2016, the part of the disposition imposing corporate tax of KRW 197,002,330 (including additional tax) imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff for the year 2015, which exceeds KRW 142,325,669, shall be revoked.

B. On September 1, 2016, the part of the Defendant’s disposition exceeding KRW 1,059,816,852 against the Plaintiff in excess of KRW 1,059,372,315 of the disposition of notice of change in the amount of income accrued in 2015 shall be revoked.

C. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 80% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows. The part exceeding 4,781,60 won of the imposition of corporate tax of 197,002,330 won (including additional tax) for the business year 2015 against the plaintiff on September 1, 2016 and the part exceeding 18,372,315 of the disposition of change in income amount for the year 2015 shall be revoked.

2. The defendant's purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation shall be dismissed.

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except for the modification of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows 2 and supplement or addition of the judgment in accordance with paragraph 3, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including each of the annexed parts, but excluding "3. conclusion" part). Therefore, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation

2. Parts to be corrected;

○ 225,153,640 won (223,754,690 won) for 225,153,640 won (=223,754,690 won) for 225,153,640 won.

○○ 4 10 to 11, one of the 4 pages, was the only registration officer of the Plaintiff after November 30, 201.

○ 4 The first page of the shareholder name of the 4st page "Plaintiff" is raised as "S.".

○ 5 4) Of the table below, the bonus "3.8 million won (one month)" shall be deemed as "3.8 million won (one month) and 3.8 million won (two months)".

○ 5 pages 5) Of the table below, "263,747,875 won" for the net income of 2010 as "28,339,030 won".

"This Regulation shall enter into force on July 28, 201," which read "this Regulation shall enter into force on July 25, 201," which read as "this Regulation shall enter into force on July 25, 201."

○ 10 The phrase “182,405,360 won” shall be read as “182,405,356 won” under the 8 table below 10 pages.

○ 10 pages, 5 below, “(including each number)” shall be read as “(including a number number).”

○○ 11 and 5 below the phrase “in light of the size of each retirement allowance,” the phrase “for example, if an executive is reappointed, it shall not be deemed a real retirement.” However, the time when the Plaintiff’s director is reappointed of ParkS is inconsistent with the time when the interim retirement allowance was paid on November 5, 200, Nov. 5, 200, Nov. 5, 2004, and Nov. 5, 2007, it is difficult to view that ParkS was a real retirement at the time of the interim settlement of each of the above retirement allowances.”

○ 17 by strikings from the 7th below to the 4th below in the same page.

○ 18th 5th 5th 190s up to 7th 7th 's' as follows:

Therefore, KRW 1,059,816,852 (= KRW 1,00,000 +18,372,315 + 44,537) of the notice of change in the amount of income reverted to the Plaintiff in 2015, which was issued by the Defendant against the Plaintiff (= KRW 1,059,372,315)

(i) The portion exceeding 1 billion won + 18,372,315 won should be revoked.

○ 27 6 to 28 'the basic rules of the Corporate Tax Act' and 'the basic rules of the Corporate Tax Act' are deleted.

3. Supplement and addition of judgments;

A. The defendant's assertion

Since the Plaintiff’s act of paying KRW 2,050,000 to ParkS for retirement benefits at issue is not real retirement, the Plaintiff’s act of borrowing the assets of a corporation from the form of payment of retirement benefits and transferring the assets of a corporation without compensation, and thus, Article 88(1)9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 88(1) of the Corporate Tax Act) is subject to the denial of wrongful calculation of the total amount of retirement allowances, the instant disposition

B. Determination

1) Article 52 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the head of a regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment may calculate the amount of income for each business year of the corporation, regardless of the act or calculation of the amount of income of the corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Calculation of wrongful acts") where it is deemed that the tax burden of the corporation has been unjustly reduced due to the act or transaction with a related party prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereinafter referred to as "related party")." Article 52 (2) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "in applying paragraph (1), it shall be based on the sound social norms and commercial practices and prices (including rates, interest rates, rents, exchange rates, and other equivalent rates; hereafter referred to as "market price" in this Article) applied or to be applied in normal transactions between unrelated parties," and Article 52 (4) of the same Act provides that "necessary matters concerning the type of wrongful calculation and the calculation of the market price" shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 88 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "where assets are transferred or invested in kind with no compensation or at a price below the market price," and Article 88 (1) 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "other acts or calculations corresponding to those under subparagraphs 1 through 7, 7-2, 8 and 8-2, and other distributions of profits of the corporation" shall be included in the calculation method.

2) In light of the above provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes, insofar as it is recognized that Park S received interim settlement of retirement benefits from the Plaintiff on December 28, 2015 following the conversion of annual salary system and received the “real retirement benefits” as stipulated in Article 44(2)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff received the Plaintiff’s assets without compensation by borrowing the payment form of retirement benefits for the entire amount of KRW 2,050,000, or by distributing the Plaintiff’s profits similar thereto. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion premised on this premise is not accepted (In addition, the above assertion is not accepted as a basis for “reasonable retirement benefits amount” calculated based on Article 44(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and the above part of the disposition of imposition by wrongful calculation is not applied separately to the pertinent portion of the retirement benefits under the premise that the Plaintiff did not recognize the portion exceeding KRW 602,500,000 as losses.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in some different conclusions, and the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as per Disposition.