A. On January 5, 2005, the part that exceeds KRW 396,046,211 of the notice of change in the amount of income belonging to the business year of 2003 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

B. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the total costs of litigation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, eight minutes shall be borne by the Defendant, the remainder by the Plaintiff, and the part resulting from the participation by the Plaintiff shall be borne by the Plaintiff respectively, and one of them shall be borne by the Defendant, and the remainder by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, respectively.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the modification of the part of “judgments No. 3 and No. 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance” as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The modified part;

C. Determination

(1) Legal principles

Where a corporation fails to enter its sales in its account book despite the fact of sales, the total amount omitted from sales shall be deemed to have been leaked to a private company, barring any special circumstance. In this case, the special circumstance that the omission in sales shall not be deemed to have been leaked to a private company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du3726, Jan. 11, 2002). Meanwhile, the proviso to Article 106(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17457, Dec. 31, 2001) provides that where the amount unlawfully flown out of the account is recovered after prior knowledge that it would be corrected and the disposition of income is included in its gross income as a tax adjustment, it shall not be deemed as an internal reservation. Article 106(4) proviso to the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18174, Dec. 30, 2003) provides that the amount unlawfully flown account shall not be included in the internal adjustment.

In this case, the Plaintiff included the processing costs in the account book by issuing processing tax invoices equivalent to KRW 1,208,457,740 in total from January 2001 to January 1, 2004, and thereby raising funds equivalent to the above amount. The following is examined as to whether there are special circumstances to deem that the above amount is not leaked due to its use for the Plaintiff as alleged by the Plaintiff.

(2) As to the portion of KRW 150,000,000 for factory acquisition

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 5, 6, 7, 29, Gap evidence 8, and 28-1, 2, 30-1, 2, and 30-1, 2, and 3 of the evidence Nos. 8, and the testimony of Lee Jong-A witness of the court of first instance (excluding the portion not trusted in the following below), the plaintiff purchased the building and land of 703 factories from ○○○-dong 2186-3, 2186-3, 300,00 won from ○○○-si, 200 on January 27, 2003. The sales contract written at the request of ○○○ Electronic Co., Ltd. is prepared with the purchase price of 1,340,000 won, and 150,000,000 won in difference from the above non-indicted Electronic Co., Ltd., Ltd., and thus, the plaintiff's assertion is not reasonable for 1500,000 won.

(3) To substitute the remaining details

Gap evidence 3-1 through 4, Gap evidence 9 through 13, Gap evidence 16 through 18, Gap evidence 14-1, 2, Gap evidence 15-1 through 9, and witness A of this court of first instance paid 101,048,138 won as value-added tax according to the fact that the plaintiff received processed purchase tax invoices as part of the above non-financing, Eul paid 114,250,000 won to the officers and employees as business expenses for business activities, ③ paid 179,00,000 won with the subscription price for new shares with 132,330,000 won with the subscription price for new shares, ④ The fact that the plaintiff lent 15,000 won to the account of the plaintiff, ④ the fact that the defendant could not be found to have received 20,000 won with 20,000 won from 20,000 won to 20,000 won from 24,714, and there were no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.214.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, it is unlawful to include 150,000,000 won for factory acquisition in the portion of the disposition of this case for the business year 2003, and the remainder is lawful.

4. Conclusion

If so, the disposition of this case, which was subject to the change of income amount of KRW 396,046,211 for the business year of 2003, must be revoked within the scope exceeding KRW 246,046,211 (won 396,046,211 - 150,000). Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case 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 that partially different conclusions are unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition.